Preamble

The House met at half-past

Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BANGOR MARKET BILL [Lords]

YORKSHIRE WOOLLEN DISTRICT TRANSPORT BILL

Orders for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time upon Thursday.

FRIENDS MEETING HOUSE (REIGATE) BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Read a Second time and committed.

SCOTTISH WIDOWS' FUND AND LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY BILL (By Order)

STANDARD LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY BILL (By Order)

Orders for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time upon Thursday.

SOUTH YORKSHIRE BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Harrison: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Weish: Mr. Weish rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will take points of order immediately after I have dealt

with the Bills, because I am bound to do so by the rules of the House.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday.

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (BRIGHTON WEST PIER) BILL

Considered ; to be read the Third time upon Thursday.

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (GREAT YARMOUTH WELLINGTON PIER) BILL

Read a Second time and committed.

Mr. Harrison: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Reverting to the South Yorkshire Bill, the Rev. Ian Paisley and Mr. Peter Robinson——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the right hon. Gentleman name them by their constituencies, if he knows them?

Mr. Harrison: I cannot, Mr. Speaker. I am talking about 10 per centers and their 10 per cent. Division record. Are they present? Is this their usual practice?

Mr. Speaker: I would not know. I cannot see them. They may be on the premises. [Interruption.] I was asked only whether they were here.

Mr. Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is appreciated that one of the ways in which Bills are blocked is by the common usage of the blocking motion, which means that there has to be consideration of the matter, by the Chairman of Ways and Means regarding time for debate. The practice is generally accepted by most hon. Members, who are prepared to be here on many of the occasions on which blocking motions appear on the Order Paper. But most hon. Members on both sides of the House take great exception to someone putting down a blocking motion for many months, never being seen and having a Division record of about 10 per cent.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter on which I can rule, but I have noted—and the House has noted—the expression of opinion.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

School Leavers

Mr. Brinton: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will take steps to establish, in addition to the normal public examinations, a documentary record of a school leaver's achievements.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Dr. Rhodes Boyson): The Department is considering what action might usefully be taken centrally to encourage the introduction of such a documentary record.

Mr. Brinton: Does my hon. Friend agree that if such a scheme were introduced, behaviour would come into achievement? If he were to introduce such a scheme, would he take the opportunity to mount a campaign to persuade teachers to take more notice of discipline and the behaviour of their pupils?

Dr. Boyson: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Discipline is essential in the classroom if there is to be proper education. It would be necessary for lateness, punctuality, regular attendance, discipline and general attitude to be included in such a documentary record.

Mr. John Evans: Does not the Minister feel that it is somewhat hypocritical of his hon. Friends, who are constantly calling for cutbacks in public expenditure, to suggest schemes of this nature which will vastly increase public expenditure? Does he accept that the greatest problem facing young people is not getting records of this nature, but getting jobs when they leave school.

Dr. Boyson: It is not expensive to produce such a document when children leave school, and any reasonable school is already doing so. It is a matter of spreading an existing practice. That suggestion has come not only from my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Brinton), but from educationists and many others throughout Britain. Pupils leaving school are more likely to find employment if employers can see a full record of their behaviour and achievements at school.

Nursery Education

Mr. Blackburn: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether surplus primary school accommodation can be converted to nursery education use ; and what allowance, if any, has been made in the building programme for this purpose.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Neil Macfarlane): Yes, Sir. This is common practice. Although no part of the nursery education building programme is earmarked for adaptation work, most local authorities use their allocations for that purpose.

Mr. Blackburn: Will my hon. Friend consider making provision in 1981–82 for that purpose? Will he also consider supplementing funds raised by local people for that purpose?

Mr. Macfarlane: On the latter question, my hon. Friend raises a parochial point. It is a matter for the local education authority and the school governors if local people have raised funds for that purpose. The adaptation work is part of an on-going programme. Over the past few months the Department has contributed to local authorities by providing some broad guidelines about how the adaptation can take place.

Miss Boothroyd: Is the Minister aware that a week ago a Minister at the Department of Health and Social Security told the House that he did not accept the need for more places for the under-fives? Does the Minister accept that children who live in high-rise blocks tend to be disadvantaged because of the isolation and the environmental conditions in which they live? Does he agree that it should be the policy of the Government to provide further places for those children? When will his Department and the Department of Health and Social Security co-operate on policy matters that are vitally important to those young children?

Mr. Macfarlane: The hon. Lady raises an important social issue. I hope that the local authorities who face such problems in their areas will take due note of the provision that is required. Co-operation between the Departments takes place not only nationally, but locally. The


Government have allocated a programme of £2·63 million for 1980–81 to 40 local education authorities. We know of only five other authorities that wish to build nursery education facilities if resources become available.

Mr. John MacKay: Does my hon. Friend realise that surplus accommodation could be used by the playgroup movement? Will he ensure that he is not prevented from using the surplus accommodation in that way by an attempt on the part of the teachers' unions to institute a closed shop to keep the playgroup movement out of schools?

Mr. Macfarlane: My hon. Friend's final point is not known to me. No doubt he will write to me if he wishes to highlight any further points that he has in mind. I hope that all local authorities, chief education officers and school governors will maintain a totally flexible option about what might happen where these facilities exist.

Mr. Flannery: Is it not a fact that, far from utilising excess space to expand nursery education, the Government are cutting down nursery provision on a grand scale? Is the House aware that in an interview with the Minister some months ago he told me that the Government were considering charging for nursery education? He said that there was great pressure for that. Is not the reality that during the period of the previous Labour Administration the vast majority of Tory councils—more than 70 per cent.—did not claim their allocation for nursery education, let alone expand it?

Mr. Macfarlane: I wish that the hon. Gentleman would listen to the points that have been made from the Dispatch Box by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. The hon. Gentleman must understand that no part of the case that he has pronounced exists anywhere in Britain.

Inner London Education Authority

Mr. Peter Bottomley: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if any area outside inner London has an education authority similar to the Inner London Education Authority.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Mark Carlisle): The

ILEA has the same powers and duties under the Education Acts as all English education authorities, but its constitution as defined in the London Government Act 1963 is peculiar to the authority.

Mr. Bottomley: As it has been some time since there has been a serious review of the way in which ILEA is constituted and elected, will my right hon. and learned Friend assure the House that he will do his best to ensure either that education is devolved to local boroughs—who are as competent to deal with that as they are to deal with housing and social services—or that there is a move to direct election to ILEA, so that education issues are not simply subsumed within "Homes before Roads" and other GLC issues?

Mr. Carlisle: As my hon. Friend knows, the Government are internally reviewing matters relating to the administration of education in inner London. Of course, the original intention of the London Government Act 1963 was that this should be reviewed after it had been in operation for a few years.

Mr. Kinnock: Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to disown the so-called Baker report? If he is unable to do so, will he say how the uproar and the expense of the break-up of ILEA, which has been proposed by some of his hon. Friends, will advance educational interests, or improve the facilities available for the education of the children of London?

Mr. Carlisle: I am not prepared at this stage to disown any report in advance of the review being undertaken by the Government. The criticisms of ILEA are well known, and often expressed—such as accountability and matters of that nature. We are reviewing the administration of education in London to determine whether changes are needed to make it more appropriate to the education provided.

Mr. William Shelton: May I tell my right hon. and learned Friend how much I welcome the review? When does he think it will report?

Mr. Carlisle: I am unable to give my hon. Friend any date. It raises many complex issues. We shall bring on the


review as quickly as possible so that any uncertainty will be removed.

Mr. Beith: Will the Secretary of State bear in mind that breaking up ILEA will not only be disruptive to the education of many children but will tend to increase the inequalities between different parts of London? Will he consider carefully the idea that ILEA might be directly elected and, if so, will he ensure that it is done by a fair system?

Mr. Carlisle: I can only repeat my earlier remarks. We are considering many alternative solutions.

School Meals

Miss Joan Lestor: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will hold an inquiry into the nutritional value of schools meals.

Mr. Macfarlane: No.

Miss Lestor: Is the Minister aware that the switch to the cafeteria system has, among other things, caused grave concern among teachers and parents alike about the nutritional value of school meals? Is he further aware that in some areas the overwhelming majority of children taking school meals are those eligible for free school meals because the parents who are asked to pay for them do not consider that the nutritional value of the meal is worth the increased price? Will he reconsider his reply, and agree to institute an inquiry into the nutritional content of school meals?

Mr. Macfarlane: The hon. Lady said that the cafeteria type meal is unpopular and unacceptable in many schools. I do not believe that that is true.

Miss Lestor: I said that it was nutritionally bad.

Mr. Macfarlane: I do not believe that the nutritional aspect is bad. The cafeteria type meal has been present in many secondary schools for a long time. Most pupils like it, most teachers approve of it, and it is becoming popular in the ever-changing dietary scene in Britain. The hon. Lady touched upon the price of school meals. It is interesting to note that during the current school term 38 local authorities are charging only 35p, 32 are charging 40p, and 13 are charging 45p. That is the lion's share of the 105 local education authorities.

Mr. David Atkinson: Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the fact that, out of the total average price of the school meal, only 18p goes towards the cost of the food itself?

Mr. Macfarlane: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That has often been a great problem with the school meals service. We believe that releasing local authorities to apply their own standards in each school will benefit the Exchequer.

Mr. Whitehead: Will the Minister consider the nutritional consequences of the decision taken by many county councils, including Derby, to withdraw school milk from infant schools for children between 5 and 7 years of age? Does he realise that that is hitting the diet of growing children in a harmful way?

Mr. Macfarlane: That is a matter for the Derbyshire education committee. It is the intention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services to monitor, in due course, the nutritional effects of the new school meals and milk arrangements. It is a matter for the local authority, and not for the Secretary of State for Education and Science.

Mr. Farr: Will my hon. Friend reconsider his reply? Is he aware that, with the economies being made by education authorities, there is a risk that they are using more and more soya bean as a substitute for meat? Is he further aware that the soya bean is not of great nutritional value, and could be damaging to the health of children?

Mr. Macfarlane: On the contrary, I think that the soya bean is quite nutritional.

Truancy

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has about the current levels of truancy in schools in England.

Dr. Boyson: My Department does not monitor the incidence of absence from school on a national basis. A number of local education authorities do, however, carry out surveys as part of their efforts to deal with truancy in their own areas.

Mr. Bennett: Can the Minister confirm or deny the comments which I am receiving from many teachers that, because of the extra cost of school meals, and the fact that far fewer children are now staying for school meals, truancy rates have gone up dramatically in many schools in the last six months?

Dr. Boyson: The Department has received no evidence that what the hon. Gentleman says is true. Over the last few years, we have had a secondary schools survey as well as a survey of schools in Sheffield. In many cases they have shown an increase in truancy which is condoned by the parents. That is a new factor. In the Sheffield survey, practically all primary school absence was condoned by the parent, and at secondary school level five-sixths of absences were condoned by the parent. That shows how essential it is to involve the parents in schools rather than just punishing the children for their absence.

Dr. Mawhinney: Is not my hon. Friend concerned that in many cases weeks pass before the parents are notified that their children are truants? Ought not steps to be taken to try to reduce that period to a minimum?

Dr. Boyson: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's view. It is essential that schools notify parents the day when children are absent so that they can take action immediately and so that the pattern of truancy does not build up until it almost becomes a habit. I trust that people outside the House as well as those inside will take note of what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Marks: In response to the Government's request for education cuts are not some authorities cutting down the very services which would examine this matter and take the necessary action? Does not the Minister realise that it is the job of the Department and Education Ministers to ensure that Government funds—and a large amount of education spending is financed by Government funds—are properly spent and that adequate welfare services are provided?

Dr. Boyson: My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) referred to the importance of immediate notification of absence. That is something

which I believe a school can do immediately, either by letter or by telephone contact. Surely all schools have the telephone numbers of the parents' place of work.

Mr. William Hamilton: They do not all have telephones.

Dr. Boyson: The hon. Gentleman suggests that factories are not on the telephone. Any reasonable school knows where the parents are during the daytime, and it should contact them. Unlike Labour Members, we do not make excuses for absence ; we want it cured.

Strathclyde University

Mr. Foulkes: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received from Strathclyde university on overseas student fees and public expenditure cuts.

Dr. Boyson: I have received representations from several hon. Members writing on behalf of the Strathclyde university branch of the AUT, the Strathclyde university students association and individual academics, and direct from the joint union committee of Strathclyde university, the local association of the Association of University Teachers, the Strathclyde university students association and a number of individual students and members of staff of the university.

Mr. Foulkes: Is the Minister aware, in the light of that vast amount of representation, that Strathclyde university will have 100 fewer places for home students during the coming academic year? Is not that disgraceful at a time when demand for places is up and when the need for scientists and technologists is rising? Is it not about time that the Government came out from behind the skirts of the UGC and made the much-needed U-turn in their policy of cuts in education?

Dr. Boyson: I am by no means aware that there is to be a cut of 100 places in Strathclyde next year. I would be astonished if that were the case and would wonder why it had happened. It is as well to inform the hon. Gentleman, if he will listen, that this year's increase in grant to Strathclyde from the UGC compared with last year is 18–8 per cent., which seems adequate to maintain the intake at last year's rate. I am also aware


of the percentage of overseas students there. We know what the applications are nationally. There does not seem to be any reason why Strathclyde should cut to that extent and why the Government should be blamed for it.

Mr. Henderson: In the representations from Strathclyde university was my hon. Friend made aware of the fact that, while there was a pause in applications from overseas students at the beginning, in very recent weeks there has been a satisfactory increase in the number of applications, as is the case in many Scottish universities? Can he further say whether the representations from Strathclyde university asked his right hon. and learned Friend, at the meeting of Commonwealth Education Ministers in Sri Lanka later this year, to look at the problem of poorer students from the less developed countries of the Commonwealth?

Dr. Boyson: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will have noted my hon. Friend's second point. I am delighted by the information that he gave in his first point. Such information is coming in from various areas. I am sure that the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) will cheer up now that he realises that most of his worries are unnecessary, and will accordingly join us in celebrating a general advance.

Mr. McQuarrie: Since the real impact of what may happen to overseas students will not be felt until October when the term starts, will the Minister be prepared to look at the situation again if it is found to be disadvantageous to overseas students?

Dr. Boyson: I welcome my hon. Friend's observation. My right hon. and learned Friend and myself have regularly said that we shall monitor the situation. It will be November before the figures are known. On one day last week the press reported that the number of overseas students was increasing, but the following day, we discovered that it was declining. We would have St. Vitus' dance if we took a daily count. We shall certainly look at the figures in November and see what the situation is.

Teachers (Pay and Conditions of Service)

Mr. Thornton: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether measures are to be taken to establish a

direct link between future negotiations on teachers' pay and the conditions and contracts of service of those teachers.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: Discussions are proceeding between the local authority and teachers' associations on conditions of service, and my Department and the local authority associations are jointly reviewing the implications of the Remuneration of Teachers Act 1965, with particular reference to the negotiation of pay and of other conditions of service.

Mr. Thornton: I am obliged to my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Is he aware that the local authorities are still reeling from the effects of Clegg mark I and mark II and are still anxiously awaiting the mark I Houghton teacher, which we were promised many years ago but which has never been realised? The negotiations that are taking place are badly overdue.

Mr. Carlisle: I am fully aware that in its proposals the Clegg Commission said that it took account of the wide range of extra-curricular activities which teachers consider to be part of their normal life. I believe that it is compatible with the professional standing of teachers that there should be some greater clarity among them as to what that amounts to.

Mr. Kinnock: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman ensure that the local education authorities have sufficient funds to make payment under the Clegg award ? If not, will he ensure that any local authorities which are forced to supplement their rates in order to pay those bills are exempted from any Government action which may inhibit them in that course?

Mr. Carlisle: From the many statements that have been made from this Dispatch Box, both by myself and by the Chancellor, the hon. Gentleman knows that the rate support grant took what we considered to be a realistic assessment of the likely effect of the Clegg Commission report, together with an additional 13 per cent. to allow for inflation in pay for the current year. We stick by those commitments.

Mr. Greenway: Does not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the pay and conditions of teachers will be substantially and strongly affected by falling rolls? In considering any future


section 13 notices, will he strongly bear in mind the need for diversity of provision in all types of schools so that we continue to have single-sex schools and denominational schools as well as coeducational schools?

Mr. Carlisle: I am not quite sure whether my hon. Friend's question arises from my previous answer. However, in reviewing section 13 proposals, one of the matters that I try to take into account is the need to have a diversity of schools in an area so as to enable wider parental choice.

Mr. Foulkcs: In considering future arrangements for negotiating teachers' pay, will the Secretary of State look at the possibility of setting up a standing review body, along the lines which exist for the police and other groups, which has the support of the teachers in Scotland?

Mr. Carlisle: I would not have thought that was necessary. I repeat that we are in conversation with the local education authorities about the Remuneration of Teachers Act.

Assisted Places Scheme

Mr. Beith: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many schools have had their applications to take part in the assisted places scheme approved.

Dr. Boyson: None, Sir. As my right hon. and learned Friend indicated in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Thornton) on 3 June, it was only last week that schools were invited to make formal application to participate in the scheme. I know that the hon. Gentleman has great faith in the speed with which the Government act, but we do not expect replies before 7 July.

Mr. Beith: When the schools are eventually chosen, how can the Minister justify the fact that a family with an income of £90 a week will not have to pay a penny towards the cost of an assisted place whereas a family with an income of £56 a week will have to pay every penny of the cost of school meals?

Dr. Boyson: I, too, have been looking at the scale of contributions. It is interesting,, in view of statements that are

made by Labour Members about this Government helping the rich, to note that a family with an income of £10,000 a year—which at present is only £2,000 more than the average family income——

Mr. William Hamilton: "Only" !

Dr. Boyson: Well, I know that innumeracy is rife on the Labour Benches, but a family with two children and with an income £10,000 will not get one penny of help, under the old direct grant system, with the fees that are being charged at present. This scale is to ensure that people on average or low incomes will be able to give their children that opportunity.

University Financing

Dr. Mawhinney: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he last discussed with the chairman of the University Grants Committee the future financing of British universities.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: On 18 February 1980. The chairman of the UGC was also present when I met representatives of the committee of vice-chancellors and principals of the universities of the United Kingdom on 22 May 1980.

Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Is he aware that there is a growing appreciation within the colleges of London university that it might be beneficial if those colleges were financed directly through the University Grants Committee, rather than through the agency of London university? Will he undertake to raise this matter with the University Grants Committee at the first opportunity?

Mr. Carlisle: I shall certainly consider the points made by my hon. Friend.

Mr. van Straubenzee: In discussing the future financing of universities will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that it would be contrary to all that universities stand for if a fee system was initiated in respect of home students that differentiated according to the school at which the student was educated?

Mr. Carlisle: Yes, I would. I find the posture of the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) extraordinary. In one and the same week he advocates that a wealthy American whose child is educated in this


country should not be charged the full fees because to do so would apparently imply a policy which portrayed the morals of a scorpion—whatever that may mean—and that an Englishman who has paid both rates and taxes, but has chosen, in addition, to pay for his child's education, should be penalised by being required to pay full university fees.

Mr. Beith: Will not these discussions on university financing have to take some account of the level of university teachers' pay? Is not the present uncertainty as difficult for the universities to contend with as it is for the university teachers?

Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman will know that we announced a recurrent grant to the universities of £987 million for the current year. With regard to university teachers' pay, I shall be meeting the president of the AUT later this afternoon.

Mr. Kinnock: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that he has just shown an incomprehension and misrepresentation of a level which I should not have thought was within his reach? Does he not agree that those people who consistently applaud the idea of purchasing secondary education should have that freedom and privilege extended to all levels of education if they wish to take advantage of it?

Mr. Carlisle: I am fully aware that the proposition which the hon. Gentleman appears to be propounding is that in a free society, if a person, having paid his rates and taxes, nevertheless chooses, in addition, to pay for his child's education, he should, by some means, be penalised by being refused the services at any other stage in the child's education for which he has already paid. I should have thought that that proposition was so vindictive, vicious and literally stupid as to be beyond the belief, even of the hon. Gentleman.

School Meals

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he now has the figures for spring 1980 of the numbers of pupils in secondary schools which (a) have free school lunches, (b) pay for school lunches, and (c) bring packed lunches ; and if he will publish them in theOfficial Report.

Mr. Macfarlane: This information is not available. The last census of school meals was held in October 1979, details of which are in the Library.

Mr. Roberts: Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that in the aftermath of the Education Act, we shall have, in school meals, a cycle of rising prices and falling numbers? In those circumstances, will he ensure that all parents are aware of free meal entitlement? Will he also look at the important problem of the anonymity, in the school cafeteria system, of the child who receives free school meals?

Mr. Macfarlane: Local education authorities must make every effort to ensure that pupils and parents are aware of entitlement to free school meals. We dealt with that in the Education Act 1980. We also enabled local education authorities to be free to adopt a higher level of entitlement to free school meals as part of that assessment. I believe that the anonymity of youngsters receiving free school meals is well understood by head teachers, and I endorse what the hon. Gentleman has said. It is of paramount importance that that aspect is observed.

Mr. Gummer: What investigation has been carried out into the cost of providing school meals? Is my hon. Friend aware that in my constituency the un-subsidised school meal at a private school costs the same as the subsidised school meal in the public education system? At present, we are spending a great deal more money on the administration of the school meals service than we should be spending.

Mr. Macfarlane: The cost of administration of the school meals service has always been excessive. My hon. Friend has provided some interesting information on the comparison of costs between the private sector and the maintained sector, and I am grateful to him. However, it is far too soon for the House to assess the effects of the local authorities policies' on the school meals service. The Department is aware of the fall-off which has occurred this summer in pupils taking advantage of the traditional school meal, but that is inevitable, and it happens during the corresponding period each summer. The Department is in touch


with local authorities, and it is monitoring the causes and developments of the trend.

Mr. Hardy: Will the Under-Secretary ensure that a survey is carried out this autumn which considers not merely the number of pupils taking advantage of them and the price of school meals but the food value and the cost of those school meals? Is he aware that in Gloucestershire the charge for a school meal is 45p. and that the meal consists of food worth only 19p.? Should the Department of Education and Science sit idly by and watch that kind of profiteering?

Mr. Macfarlane: We believe that the legislation that was passed earlier this year will reduce those statistics. I cannot give the assurance that the hon. Gentleman seeks about a future survey. I shall take note of what he has said, and I shall discuss with my officials whether it is necessary. The difficulty in carrying out any census is in trying to achieve realistic figures and ensuring that all the conditions for that census are effective.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: While the Minister is doing that, will he try to find out the views of parents whose children receive free school meals? Will he find out whether they would prefer to have the money, so that they can feed their children more cheaply and keep the extra money, or are we supposed to believe that poor people are not as interested in feeding their children properly as those who are better off?

Mr. Macfarlane: I understand my hon. Friend's point, but I cannot give any assurance to the House on the first part of his question. It is up to local authorities to monitor all those conditions to which my hon. Friend has referred.

Mr Foster: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has had from the National Association of Head Teachers regarding the school meals service.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: Representations have been received about midday supervision and, during the passage of the Education Bill, about the duty placed on authorities to provide facilities for pupils who bring their own food to school, and about the omission of certain provisions of the former statutory regulations.

Mr. Foster: Are not the head teachers saying that the school meals service is bordering on chaos because of inadequate supervision, and that this Government's legislation and cuts have made matters immeasurably worse?

Mr. Carlisle: I do not accept that. I accept that head teachers are worried about midday supervision. They have been worried about that for some time and their worries are certainly not related to the Government's proposals on school meals.

Books and Equipment

Mr. Sheerman: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what evidence he has of difficulties currently being experienced by local authorities in financing the provision of books and equipment in schools.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: We are aware that difficulties exist. It was in recognition of the problem that the Government's expenditure plans made provision for increased expenditure per pupil in this area.

Mr. Sheerman: Is the Minister aware of widespread press reports of a situation in which children are having to hold raffles to decide who takes home the book for their homework? Is not this taking us back into the nineteenth century, in which there was one law for the charity pupil and another law for the better off?

Mr. Carlisle: Yes, I am aware of the report. For the sake of greater clarity, I have a copy with me. It is a statement made by the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) to which the hon. Gentleman refers, in which the hon. Member for Bedwellty is reported as saying :
We are seeing a system … where children draw lots to use books and equipment ".
I ask the hon. Member for Bedwellty now whether he will get up at the Dispatch Box and name the schools where children are drawing lots to use books and equipment, so that I can inquire, as I should do, into his allegations.

Mr. Kinnock: rose——

Sir John Eden: Whilst undoubtedly every sector of the service is capable of yielding economies, may I ask whether my right hon. and learned Friend agrees that cuts in the provision of school books should be the very last in the order of


priorities of any well managed and proper thinking education authority?

Mr. Carlisle: I absolutely agree. That is why, in looking for savings—which, I repeat, are considerably less in proportion than the drop in the number of pupils in schools—we have consistently said that we believe that those savings should, whenever possible, be made in areas which do not affect the classroom.

Mr. Kinnock: From the information available to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, will he deny that children are using school books on rotas——

Mr. Budgen: Which schools?

Mr. Kinnock: That sharing is extensive and that the use of worksheets is universal? Does he deny that? Does he consider, since he has already acknowledged that there is an immense shortage of school books in schools, that he—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I want to hear the question.

Mr. Kinnock: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that he is presiding over a situation in which local education authorities are being forced by these cuts to break sections 8 and 61 of the 1944 Act? What will he do about that? Or is he content with a "books-from-bingo" system and with dodging answers by making references to my speeches instead of dealing with his own responsibilities as Secretary of State for Education and Science?

Mr. Carlisle: rose——

Mr. Kinnock: When will the right hon. and learned Gentleman—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is quite clear that I shall not be able to call anyone else for a supplementary question on this question. The hon. Member for Bed-wellty (Mr. Kinnock) is going on a long time.

Mr. Carlisle: rose——

Mr. Kinnock: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There are millions of children in this country who are suffering from a shortage of books because of the actions of the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. Carlisle: Of course I am aware, as the hon. Gentleman has said, that there

are probably many schools in this country in which books are from time to time shared, and I suspect that that has happened over many hundreds of years. What I am equally aware of is that, having specifically asked the hon. Gentleman to cite the schools at which he said, on Saturday,
children draw lots to use books and equipment ",
he specifically failed to do so. The House must draw its own conclusion—that the hon. Gentleman is prepared to make any statement outside the House without regard to the facts. In future, those who read these things in newspapers would be wise not to believe a word that he says.
I also say to the hon. Gentleman that, having listened to his remarks today, the House might be forgiven for not realising that the present Government—dealing with books, materials and equipment in schools for the current year, 1980–81—are providing for an increase both on that which was spent in the last year of the Labour Government—in 1978–79—in real terms and indeed, on that which was intended to be provided by the previous Government, in real terms, which had, in fact, remained constant during the period of the Labour Government. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that there are shortages of books and equipment in schools, in view of the record of his party when in office that is hypocrisy and humbug.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)

Mr. Foulkes: asked the Prime Minister if she wll list her official engagements for Tuesday 10 June.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.

Mr. Foulkes: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Secretary of State for Defence failed to satisfy the House yesterday—[HON. MEMBERS : "Nonsense."]—on the question of false nuclear alerts? What is she doing to ensure that we do not die through computer error? In the light of the state of the economy, will she check whether the Treasury model is on the same kind of computer?

The Prime Minister: I read the exchanges in the House yesterday involving my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. I thought that he dealt very satisfactorily with the questions asked. Of course, both he and I are concerned about these alerts. Naturally we would be, being responsible for nuclear activity here, and we take that responsibility extremely seriously. But as my right hon. Friend pointed out, the action taken was defensive and the mistake was discovered very quickly.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Now that the Camp David agreement has clearly run into the sands, and recalling a number of serious incidents on the West Bank, is it not a good time for the European Community to be putting forward a new approach to the problems of the Middle East that does not ignore the views of the PLO?

The Prime Minister: As a result of a direction at Luxembourg, the Heads of Government and Prime Ministers will be discussing the situation in the Middle East when we meet this weekend in Venice. I am sure that our discussions will take fully into account the two things which are absolutely vital—the need to recognise Israel's right to exist behind secure boundaries, and the need also to recognise the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people. The difficulty has always been to get these two things reciprocal and in step. But we shall have our discussions, and if we come to any conclusions, doubtless a communique will be issued.

Mr. Maxton: Has the Prime Minister found time to read the announcement last week to the effect that Weir Pumps, in my constituency, is declaring close to 1,000 people redundant? Does she agree that when a company which has a very good export record, which has invested millions of pounds in the last few years in the redevelopment of the company, and which is increasing productivity, blames the Government's record on inflation, the high level of the pound and high interest rates for its failings it is time that she changed her economic policies?

The Prime Minister: If a company has, unfortunately, to declare redundancies, it is obviously because that company is unable to sell its products in the markets

of today. [Interruption.] I can only say that many companies are keeping up their export records very well indeed. [HON. MEMBERS : "Where?"] The figures show it. Forty-four per cent. of our exports go directly to the rest of the European Community, and our largest market is West Germany.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Referring to the Venice summit and appreciating the Government's dilemma in this matter, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether she will assure the House that neither will impediments be put in the way of the advance in the Camp David process nor will damage be done to Anglo-American relations?

The Prime Minister: It is not our purpose in any way to put any impediments in the way of the Camp David process, in which we wholeheartedly believe and which we hope will succeed, nor to cause any problems between Europe and the United States. It is vital that we do not do so.

Oral Answers to Questions — GRUNTY FEN

Mr. Freud: asked the Prime Minister whether she will visit Grunty Fen.

The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so.

Mr. Freud: Is the Prime Minister aware that that will come as a small blow to my constituents? Will the Prime Minister accept that the fear of Grunty Fenmen is that her Ministers have no idea of how, when or even whether the level of wage settlements will be lowered by her policy of monetarism and of restraining the growth of M3? Will she state how much damage will be done to the economy's productive capacity—[HON. MEMBERS : "Reading"]—before the policy's effect on wages becomes apparent?

The Prime Minister: I am sorry to hear of the worries of the 97 people in Grunty Fen. I had understood that it was a very happy agricultural community, that it had a low rate of unemployment and that it was in many ways contented under a Conservative Government. As regards the hon. Gentleman's statement about monetary policy, if we are to squeeze inflation out of the economy it is vital


that we print less money. Our policy is directed towards that.

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

Mr. Wigley: asked the Prime Minister if she will state when she next intends to visit Wales.

The Prime Minister: I hope to visit Wales next month.

Mr. Wigley: Will the Prime Minister tell the people of Wales how many people will have to go to prison and on hunger protests—or worse—before her Government will carry out their election commitment, included in the Gracious Speech, to give a television channel to the Weish language?

The Prime Minister: No one has to go on a hunger protest. Although there has been a certain threat, I hope that no one will do that. When the new channel comes into being there will be more programmes in Weish. Not all of those programmes will necessarily be on that channel. However, they will be either on that channel or another one.

Mr. loan Evans: In view of the massive closures in the steel industry and the possible consequent closure of six to 12 pits, will she confirm—when she comes to Wales—that those areas that had special development area and development area status will have those titles restored? Is not she aware that as a result of the Government's policies there has been a massive increase in unemployment?

The Prime Minister: We have tended to upgrade the status of an area from a development area to a special development area if that area has experienced a major steel closure. We have rightly obtained a good deal of money from the Exchequer in order to assist those areas. I believe that about £15 million has been found for Shotton and £48 million for South Wales.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)

Mr. Straw: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 10 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave a few moments ago.

Mr. Straw: Is the Prime Minister aware of the forecast made by the EEC Commission to the effect that Britain's economy will do worse this year than any of its European partners? Is she aware that it is forecast that our economy will decline by 2½ per cent., while the economies of every other European country—bar one—will increase? Is she further aware that that includes the Italian economy and that although its level of inflation is the same as ours, its economy will increase by 3½ per cent.? Does she think that our dismal performance has anything to do with her policies? If not, what will she use as her scapegoat of the month for explaining the failure of her economic policies?

The Prime Minister: We have at least one forecast a day. The options are that we could tax the pay packet more, increase VAT, borrow more—and have even higher interest rates—or print more money. I reject all four of those options.

Mr. Churchill: As thousands of Afghan patriots and civilian villagers are being murdered by the Soviet occupying forces, will my right hon. Friend explain once again to Sir Denis Follows and to the British Olympic Committee that in such circumstances it would be inappropriate for British athletes to go to Moscow to play games with the butchers of Kabul?

The Prime Minister: I would have thought that the action of Soviet troops in Afghanistan speaks more loudly than my words or of those of my right hon. and noble Friend the Foreign Secretary. I sometimes wonder what more the Russians will have to do in Afghanistan by way of atrocities before they convince our Olympic athletes that they should not go to Moscow.

Mr. Foster: When will the Prime Minister take seriously the problems of the long-term unemployed? Does not she realise that there may soon be half a million of such unemployed, and that many of them will be concentrated in areas—such as mine—in the Northern region? When will she bring in a programme that includes training and work experience in order to give those people hope?

The Prime Minister: Of course we take seriously the problems of the long- and short-term unemployed. The hon. Gentleman will be fully aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment runs many programmes. He will also be aware that there are many skill-centres and that some of them are not fully occupied. Sometimes people find it difficult to get a job as they are unable to move from one area to another due to housing problems. I hope that those problems will be substantially reduced when the Housing Bill is enacted.

Sir John Eden: Has not my right hon. Friend often made clear that the desired changes and improvements in our economic performance cannot be achieved without causing some temporary difficulties and hardships? Will she therefore resist all blandishments and hold firm to her present policies until they have been seen through to success?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my right hon. Friend. However, I would add that lower pay settlements now will mean lower rates of unemployment later.

Mr. Sheennan: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 10 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave earlier to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes).

Mr. Sheennan: Will the Prime Minister spend some time today telling my constituents in Huddersfield and those who live in West Yorkshire what part of the magic formula they have missed? Is not she aware that my constituents and the people of West Yorkshire are hard working, highly skilled, have a history of accepting comparatively low wage rates and that they export most of their products? They do everything right. Why are factories closing and jobs disappearing under her Government? Why is there a hopeless feeling of dismay coming over that area?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has neglected one thing. If factories close it is because they are unable to compete with the goods that have been produced by other people who are similarly working in factories. The level of

productivity in Britain is way below that of other countries. The economic lesson that can be learnt from other countries is that those countries that have high wages and high productivity have done better than those with lower wages and lower productivity.

Mr. Anthony Grant: Further to the supplementary question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) will my right hon. Friend ensure that every athlete who is so minded to undertake the unwise journey to Moscow is given full Government information about the appalling horrors that occur in Afghanistan every day?

The Prime Minister: I doubt whether we could give that information to every athlete. I hope that all athletes are fully aware of what is going on, and of the consequences of going to Moscow. I hope that they recognise the boost that that would give to the morale of the Soviet Government.

Mr. Strang: Will the Prime Minister take time today to reconsider her attitude to the sale by the NEB of its 50 per cent. stake in Ferranti? Is the right hon. Lady aware that the whole work force is united in its opposition to the sale? Is she further aware that the managing director has written to all Members of Parliament affected and that he has mentioned the threat to jobs? Does the right hon. Lady want this company to be acquired by GEC? Does she want to see its expansion plans for Scotland replaced by a programme of rationalisation and redundancy?

The Prime Minister: The last time I answered questions in the House I believe that I dealt with a similar question. I shall give the same answer. The NEB and the previous Labour Government assisted Ferranti during a very difficult period. Ferranti no longer needs that assistance. The NEB wishes to sell the shares and to obtain the best possible price. It must be free to do that.

Mr. Heddle: Will my right hon. Friend take time today to note that the number of homeless families has continued to increase since the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act was enacted by the previous Labour Government? Does not she agree that the Opposition's dogmatic opposition to the Government's shorthold provision


is a direct denial of the right of those homeless families to rent?

The Prime Minister: I wholly agree with my hon. Friend. I believe that the shorthold provisions in the present Housing Bill will bring many vacant properties on to the market, and this will help thousands of people to find homes. Another significant provision will give council tenants the right to have lodgers. That will help many young people who are seeking jobs in different areas.

Mr. Guy Barnett: Returning to the reply that the Prime Minister gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. Sheerman), does she really believe that the number of redundancies and closures that have taken place have nothing whatever to do with the bank rate?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Member believes that the bank rate has determined the number of redundancies and closures, I do not think that the facts will bear him out. We have had high interest rates and bank rates for nearly a year now. That is far too long to have high interest rates, and I want them to come down as soon as possible. However, the exports of this country have kept up extremely well. Many companies are fighting their way through and increasing productivity. Unless we get that increase in productivity we shall not have healthy industries which are the only basis for expansion.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS (DEBATES)

Mr. Speaker: I have a brief statement to make. On 24 March, the last occasion on which EEC documents were debated, points of order were raised about the nonavailability of a certain document that had been referred to, although not actually quoted, by a Minister.
I have given further consideration to this matter and now rule that a Minister is free to quote from an EEC document only if it has been made available in the Vote Office at least two hours before the beginning of the debate.

TENERIFE AIR CRASH

The Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. John Nott): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a further statement on the Tenerife air crash.
As the House is aware, the accidents investigation branch of my Department has been actively participating in the Spanish investigation in accordance with established international procedures. These procedures place the formal responsibility for investigating an accident—and the relevant report—in the hands of the country where the tragedy took place.
The AIB team had two full days of meetings with the Spanish commission of investigation last week in Madrid. Following this I am now in a position to inform the House of the statement that has been agreed between the Spanish team and my accident investigation branch. The statement is technical, and I shall read it to the House as it was agreed.
The Dan-Air accident at Tenerife on 25 April 1980—First radio contact with Tenerife Air Traffic Control was made by DA 1008 when it was 14 nautical miles from the VOR/ DME beacon TFN. The flight was then cleared to the FP (radio beacon) via TFN, flight level 110, expect runway 12, no delay. The flight up to this time had been without incident. Some three minutes later it was then instructed to descend and maintain flight level 60.
The crew reported overhead beacon TFN some 35 seconds after passing that facility. Air Traffic Control then informed them that the standard holding over FP beacon is inbound heading 150 deg., turn to the left. This indicates an anti-clockwise pattern. This procedure was not published and was not included in the appropriate radio facility charts carried on the aircraft. However, it was accepted by the pilot.
The aircraft did not pass over the FP but flew to the south of the beacon calling entering the hold and passing abeam about one minute after the previous transmission. About half a minute later it was cleared to descend to 5,000 feet.
Although he had expressed his intention of entering the holding pattern, the commander, for reasons which are not clear, turned the aircraft to the left towards the South-East, into an area of high ground where the sector minimum safe altitude is 14,500 feet.
During the descent to 5,000 feet, the ground proximity warning system operated and the


crew immediately commenced an overshoot procedure. With high engine power being applied, the aircraft was put into a steep turn to the right, but it struck the mountainside before it had climbed above 5,500 feet.
The radio navigational facilities at Tenerife North airport were checked after the accident and were found to have been operating normally. The Spanish commission of inquiry is continuing the investigation into the causes of the accident and will, in due course, produce a report.
That is the end of the agreed statement.
The House will understand that the statement that I have read does not apportion blame, nor is it the object of an accident investigation so to do. Its sole task is to establish facts and to make such recommendations as it may think fit in order to improve safety.

Mr. John Smith: I thank the Secretary of State for making an interim report to the House, as he undertook to do. I think that he will appreciate that the agreed statement is full of technicalities, and I am sure that it will be as difficult for other Members, as it is for myself, fully to appreciate its meaning.
It appears that the standard holding pattern requires a turn to the left by the aircraft. At a later stage the statement said :
The commander, for reasons which are not clear, turned the aircraft to the left.
Is it the case that the commander of the aircraft did not turn in accordance with the accepted holding pattern? Perhaps the Secretary of State would clarify that point.
A matter of greater concern is the fact that the statement says that this holding procedure was not published and was not included in the appropriate radio facility chart carried by the aircraft. Will the Secretary of State comment on that? Will he tell us what steps are being taken to ensure that these charts are carried on aircraft and are made known to the captains of aircraft opera ting in this area? In the light of the fact that many of thousands of British citizens will be travelling through this area in the next few months and indeed are travelling there now—can the Secretary of State say what action he, the Spanish authorities, or any other relevant authorities intend to take in order to ensure that this kind of difficulty does not arise again?

Mr. Nott: The right hon. Gentleman raised two pertinent points. This is a technical matter, and until the full invesigation report is published I must be very careful about what I say. I hope that the House will understand that.
The right hon. Gentleman is right—the aircraft turned to the left towards the South-East when it should have gone on a North-West heading. It did not turn in the correct direction.
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman asked about the published data. The information that is required to be provvided by air traffic control either must be provided by publication or by radio telephone transmission. There are a number of items that must be provided in either of these ways. In this case the information was provided by radio telephone. International agreement does not require that this information should be published, but it is true that there is a convention that it is normally so published.

Mr. Smith: I am sorry to press the Secretary of State, but I asked him what steps were being taken to ensure that this kind of difficulty did not arise again? Did I understand him to say that he was prepared to rely on the convention that these things might be published? Would it not be wiser for him to take steps to ensure that these matters are understood?

Mr. Nott: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's point, but the requirements here are set by international agreement. I have taken his point fully, but at this juncture I can inform him only that the international agreement requires either that the information should be published or that it should be made available to an aircraft by radio telephone, which is what happened in this case. However, I emphasise that I understand his point and have taken full note of it.

Mr. Churchill: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that no surveillance radar was available to the air traffic control authorities at Tenerife airport? If that is so, does he agree that that is a grave deficiency in an airport that is used by countless thousands of British and other holidaymakers during the year and that is plagued not only by bad weather but by surrounding high terrain? Does my right hon. Friend further agree that had such surveillance radar been operating


the accident could have been avoided, even if the initial instructions from air traffic control had not been properly complied with by the pilot?

Mr. Nott: I repeat the answer that I gave my hon. Friend on 28 April, when I made my first statement. I said then :
There were radio navigation aids at the airport, including a main VHF beacon, and three medium frequency beacons of low power, together with an instrument landing system. There is surveillance radar at Las Palmas covering the whole island, but there is no local radar at the northern airfield. This is not dissimilar to the situation in many airports throughout the world which take scheduled passengers."—[Official Report, 28 April 1980 ; Vol. 983, c. 985.]
My hon. Friend asked whether the accident could have been avoided had there been local radar. At this juncture it is impossible to say. My hon. Friend and the House will have to await the full report for such information.

Mr. Marks: Is the Minister satisfied that aircraft leaving this country from Manchester, London, Luton or elsewhere, whether privately owned, scheduled or chartered, will have charts for the airports that they are flying to over the next months—charts that this aircraft obviously did not have?

Mr. Nott: I believe that I have already answered that question. There is a set of international rules, which I have already described to the House. In the short term there is no way that this Government or any other can change those international rules. I have noted the point made by the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend. I assure them that I shall study the matter and bring it to the attention of those responsible for air safety throughout the world.

Mr. Wilkinson: Can my right hon. Friend confirm whether the press reports that there is a discrepancy between the Jeppesen manual and the International Air Radio Limited publication "Aerad" with regard to this airport are true? The 727 was carrying only one of those manuals—I do not know which—but can my right hon. Friend confirm that the pilot would in any case have had the correct terminal approach for the runway?

Mr. Nott: I do not pretend to have the technical information required to answer that question. If it is possible

and right that I should answer it, I shall let my hon. Friend have an answer in writing.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call those hon. Members who have been rising, because I know that they all have an interest.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: Does the Secretary of State accept that his statement poses the possibility of pilot error? May I therefore return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) about the absence of directional radar at Los Rodeos? As the Spanish inquiry into the tragedy proceeds, can the Secretary of State assure us that the safety and interests of British holidaymakers will be put above the interests of charter airlines and travel agencies, and the susceptibilities of the Spanish aviation authorities? Can the right hon. Gentleman give a categorical assurance that Los Rodeos airport is safe for charter flights?

Mr. Nott: Of course it is right that the safety of air passengers is paramount. I understand the strong feelings concerning what I describe as the local radar, but this is an approved airport. It is approved to take British charter and scheduled passengers. There is no local radar at many approved airports in the world that take passengers. I understand the concern, but if we changed the arrangements and denied access to airports, throughout the world, that do not have local radar, there would be a dramatic change in the number of airports that British aircraft could visit.

Mr. Alan Clark: Will my right hon. Friend accept that from the statement it is plain that the pilot, having been given a completely unfamiliar holding pattern, did the exact opposite and went into the normal holding pattern? Does he agree that the statement said that that was accepted by the pilot? Is that fact recorded? There is no record of that acceptance in the statement? Does my right hon. Friend further agree that such a deviation would have been immediately apparent on a radar screen, had there been local radar? As Los Rodeos has the highest casualty figures of any airport in the world, would it not be advisable for my right lion. Friend to discriminate between that airport, with those particularly


dangerous features, and other airports that he rightly tells the House do not have radar surveillance?

Mr. Nott: The pilot was told to go into the normal holding pattern for that airport. The airport was not unfamiliar to him. He had flown into it very many times before. It is not my job to apportion blame ; that is a question for the courts and I do not intend to go into that. The pilot was instructed to go into the normal holding pattern. He went into a different heading from the one that is normal. Hon. Members must form their own views. As I told the right hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. Smith) when I made my previous statement, I understand that Los Rodeos is a difficult airport. The casualty figures include the tragic accident that took place on the ground, of which everyone is aware. I cannot confirm to my hon. Friend that if that accident on the ground is excluded the casualty figures are as he states. I hope that I have answered his question.

Mr. Sheerman: I accept the difficulties that the Minister now faces, but will he try to put himself into the position of the average constituent, going on holiday with a family? Will he accept that there is a need for speedy assurance now, and not in October, that action is being taken to tighten up any laxity that may exist? For example, will he ask all British operators whether they have severe reservations about any destinations to which they fly? Does he agree that in the short term, informally, through various channels and without too much publicity, he could make sure that standards on the ground are tightened up? Does he agree that that would help to assure people that we shall not have a further disaster this summer, when people would have to ask the House why no action was taken?

Mr. Nott: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall bring his comments and those of other hon. Members to the attention of the Civil Aviation Authority, which is expressly required to take care of these highly technical and difficult matters. They cannot be left to politicians. All that I can tell the hon. Gentleman at the moment is that the airport at Tenerife North has the standard facilities of many

holiday airports throughout the world. It is an approved airport.

Mr. Adley: We understand my right hon. Friend's difficulties and do not want to make them worse. In his answer to the right hon. Member for Manchester Openshaw (Mr. Morris) he seemed to indicate that there was a price on safety because the cost of installing safety equipment was too great. If that is so, should not civilised nations consider that it is too high a price to pay? My right hon. Friend referred to changed procedures, which were not published and not available in the cockpit. Does he know why the procedures were changed on this occasion? Does it happen frequently? Will he ascertain whether any particular airports or countries are more prone to changing procedures, particularly at busy airports at the height of the holiday season?

Mr. Nott: I do not think that I mentioned price or cost in relation to local radar. It is for the individual country to decide whether there should be local radar. I shall ensure that the CAA, which has responsibility for safety, is fully aware of the concern that, under-derstandably, has been expressed in the House today.
The arrangements were available in the cockpit under one of the procedures—radio-telephone. They were given to the pilot. He was given clear instructions, which he acknowledged. My hon. Friend believes that they should have been published. I have noted his view and that of other hon. Members who have said the same. I do not think that I can go beyond that at present. My hon. Friend is asking for a change in international procedures. I understand that point, but I cannot give an assurance just like that.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Can the Secretary of State confirm that his statement contains all the relevant recorded conversations that took place during the run-in to the airport? Will he ensure that copies of the report—short as it is—go to all pilots who operate on the route, since that might be worth while?

Mr. Nott: I made an interim statement today because I wanted to help the House with any additional information that became available and because of the great


tragedy and the great anxiety felt, understandably, in the Manchester area. However, I cannot bypass the correct investigation procedures. It is for the Spanish authorities to publish the formal report. Normally, such a report is not published in less than about a year. As soon as the report is available I am sure that the Spanish authorities will agree to its full publication. They have always done so in the past. At that time the matter will be debated in full.

Mr. Onslow: Will my right hon. Friend confirm a non-technical point? It seems unfair that the House should press him on technical matters. Is he satisfied that no technical or other information available to the British or Spanish authorities is being withheld or suppressed, or has not been made available to the inquiry? Is he satisfied that the purpose of the inquiry—to find out why the accident happened and to prevent similar accidents in the future—will be fulfilled? Is he satisfied that all the preliminary conclusions that can reasonably be drawn from the available evidence are being drawn, and that everything possible is being done to ensure safe operations in future?

Mr. Nott: I know of no information that is being withheld. So far as I am able, I can give my hon. Friend the assurances for which he asks. The full report will contain additional information. We must await it. I am aware of no information that could be available at this stage which is being withheld by the Spanish authorities.

Mr. Stott: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that three of my constituents, two of whom were personally known to me, died in the tragedy? I am grateful to him for making an interim statement. He indicated that the Spanish authorities are continuing to investigate the accident and that they will eventually produce a report. When that report is published, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that we can question him in the House on its contents?
The Secretary of State referred to radio facility charts which were not carried on the aircraft. May I press him further? Surely it is not beyond his powers to insist that all British carriers flying into Tenerife have the appropriate frequency charts on board instead of having to rely on radio transmissions

from the airport. Will he insist that aircraft carry all appropriate charts?

Mr. Nott: I have noted what the hon. Gentleman says. I shall make some inquiries. If the documents are not published, I shall have to see what can be done. The final report of any aircraft accident, be it international or domestic, entails much painstaking work and is seldom completed in under 12 months. In the past the Spanish authorities have agreed to an English language version of reports being published in the United Kingdom. I believe that that practice will be followed.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether I would make a statement in the House when the final report was available. I do not wish to give a commitment in the form for which the hon. Gentleman asks. Of course the report will be made available to him, his constituents and all who are interested in it. However, it is not normal for every accident investigation report to be made the subject of an oral statement in the House. That would create difficulties. Perhaps we can consider that matter nearer the time. It will be many months before the report is made available, but I understand the hon. Gentleman's point.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: For the benefit of the relatives of the unfortunate dead, amongst whom were several of my constituents, can my right hon. Friend confirm that the British accident investigators will continue to keep in the closest possible touch with the Spanish authorities so that they may come to an independent conclusion which might go beyond the facts published in any Spanish statement? Will he further confirm that any conclusions that British investigators may form will be made available to the public?

Mr. Nott: The gentlemen in the accidents investigation branch of my Department have been working closely with the Spanish authorities. We did the technical work on the flight data recorder and the cockpit voice recorder. It is a complicated process. My officials visited Madrid to work with the Spanish authorities. They will remain in close touch with the investigation. I must make it clear that ultimately the formal responsibility for the report lies with the


Spanish authorities. That is the manner in which we have all agreed that the processes should be handled.

Dr. M. S. Miller: We accept that the right hon. Gentleman is making an interim report and not apportioning blame, but his statement contains at least one disturbing factor. Does he accept that we are talking of an airport with high mountains near it which does not have surveillance from the ground? Does he agree that when a pilot is not familiar with an airport, or even, as in this case, when an experienced pilot is familiar with it, mistakes can occur? Does he also agree that in such circumstances, when radar cover from the ground is technically possible, it should be made available so that errors can be corrected? Should not a survey be made so that no landings of British aircraft take place at such airports until the matter is resolved?

Mr. Nott: Several hon. Members have made the point that they feel that there should have been local surveillance radar at this airport. The consequences for this country of unilaterally deciding not to use any airport where there was not local radar would be substantial. There would be consequences for British scheduled operators and for British tourists. I accept the hon. Gentleman's point ; it is taken on board. I understand his concern—and it is no use my hon. Friends muttering from the Back Benches. I am not an accident investigator, nor would I claim to be a technical expert. This matter is in the hands of technical experts and the Civil Aviation Authority who are charged with safety matters in this country. If the House ever wanted to change that procedure it could do so.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: What evidence has my right hon. Friend that instructions issued by air traffic control are often at variance with the published procedures? Will he be more specific and say whether this is a common feature of this airport's air traffic control system or whether what happened to this aircraft was exceptional?

Mr. Nott: I shall let the hon. Gentleman know whether changes had earlier been made to the holding procedures at this airport. I shall make some inquiries about the matter. I shall inform my hon. Friend whether, to our knowledge, any changes were made. I can only say that in

this accident the aircraft was warned and was instructed to go into the standing holding pattern, and, evidently, it did not follow the instructions it was given. That is a factual statement. I do not wish to become involved in opinions on this matter. There are substantial questions of civil liability and other matters involved.

Mr. Robert Atkins: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on making a good fist of a technical interim statement. As one of the many hon. Members on both sides of the House who lost constituents in the accident, I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. He has referred to the expression "an approved airport". What does he mean by it? Who approves it?

Mr. Nott: The expression is that given to any airfield which our own safety authorities have agreed is adequate and properly used by scheduled and charter aircraft.

Mr. Clinton Davis: The Secretary of State will be aware that the House has expressed great concern about the possible deficiencies in the application of the international rules and of the appropriate procedures. Can he say whether, since the accident, there has been any change in such procedures, noting the fact that he intends to make representations to the appropriate quarters following any investigation that he undertakes?
Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on the attribution of blame that appears to have been reported in the press on the part of some people in Spain who appear to be in positions of authority? Will he make representations to ensure that the same degree of equity that he has offered to the House today is followed elsewhere before the final report is published?
On the question of the standard facilities at holiday airports, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed concern about such standard facilities and that pilots, both in this country and internationally, expressed such concern a long time ago? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that there is an overwhelming case for examining, at international level, the adequacy of such standard facilities if only to give reassurance to the many thousands of people who travel to such airports?
On the question of a statement, will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that this is not just any accident? This was a major accident. It justifies, in my submission, his coming to the House to make a full statement when the report has been published.

Mr. Nott: I am not aware of any changes in international procedures made since the accident. I will check on the matter. If that is not the correct answer, I shall let the hon. Gentleman know. I do not have any responsibility for, or indeed very much control over, statements made in the press.
There has been considerable concern expressed in the House today about the adequacy of the standard facilities. I have already undertaken to draw it to the attention of the safety authorities in the United Kingdom, and I appreciate fully the points that have been made. I will ensure that that is done.
I note the hon. Gentleman's request that, because the accident was a great tragedy for many hundreds of families, the Government should make an oral statement at the time the full report becomes available. I shall consider that matter nearer the time and let the House know, either by oral or written statement, what we intend to do.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have received notice of two applications under Standing Order No. 9. I shall call them in the order in which they were made. Mr. Patrick Cormack.

AFGHANISTAN

Mr. Cormack: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan and the need for Her Majesty's Government to take further steps to express British abhorrence of the actions of the Soviet invaders of that country.
I shall not detain the House for long. I believe that the accounts in this morning's press have shocked and horrified hon. Members in all parts of the House. What started as an unprovoked and beastly act of aggression has now become an act of brutal suppression against a people who are fiercely determined to assert their own independence. At such a time, especially when our athletes are preparing to be the guests of the murderous regime in Moscow, it is essential that the House should have an opportunity further to express the fiercest possible denunciation of these latest horrific and barbarous acts.
I suggest that this submission meets the criteria of the Standing Order. I suggest, respectfully, that the business before the House today and tomorrow cannot rank in importance with this grave international crisis. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will feel able to grant my request.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan and the need for Her Majesty's Government to take further steps to express British abhorrence of the actions of the Soviet invaders of that country 
I listened with deep concern and care to what the hon. Gentleman said. As the House knows, I do not decide whether this matter shall be debated. My discretion is limited to whether it is granted as an emergency debate tonight or tomorrow. The House has instructed me to give no reasons for my decision. I know the concern of the House about the matters that the hon. Gentleman has raised, but


I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order. I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

FOOTWEAR INDUSTRY

Mr. Fry: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the crisis facing the British footwear industry.
I take this step because an industry that has already suffered 2,000 redundancies in recent months was shocked late yesterday to discover that another 400 redundancies were declared, particularly in the county of Northamptonshire.
The workers in this industry are not marked for being too highly paid. It is not an industry that has been rent by industrial action. Relations between the trade unions and employers in the industry have always been excellent.
Yet one of our traditional industries is on the verge of severe collapse. Import penetration in a smaller home market has gone up by 5 per cent. in the last 12 months. The industry is being subjected to a degree of unfair competition, particularly from Eastern European imports, which is severely undermining the welfare, jobs and stability of many in this country.
I can do no better than to quote from a telegram that I received at lunch time from a constituent who runs a shoe firm :
Front page Daily Telegraph Tuesday. The potato imports banned. Six more footwear factories closed. Can the Minister explain difference in treament? 
The industry, which has given good service to this country and is facing a severe crisis, is entitled to ask such questions and to receive a reply from the Government.
On behalf of many hard-working, loyal citizens of this country, I put it to you. Mr. Speaker, that it is time that their problems were debated in the House.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and

important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the crisis facing the British footwear industry ".
I listened with concern to the hon. Gentleman. He has submitted that the industry is entitled to a debate and to hear the voice of the Government. As the House knows, that is not a matter for me. My only discretion is whether there should be an emergency debate tonight or tomorrow.
I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said, but I must rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order. Therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

NORTHERN IRELAND

The following motion stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. Stanbrook :
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to create a Commission to examine the divergencies between the law in Northern Ireland and in England and Wales and to recommend to what extent and by what means it is expedient that those divergencies be eliminated.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Ivor Stanbrook, Ten-Minute Bill.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook (Orpington): The motion standing on the Order Paper in my name represents a modest and useful contribution to the constitutional development of Northern Ireland. It calls for the identification of the specific respects in which Northern Ireland is treated differently from other parts of the United Kingdom.
However, it would not be right for a measure affecting the constitutional position of Northern Ireland to be brought before the House without the expectation of, as far as possible, the full support of hon. Members.
It was therefore with some surprise and dismay that I was informed yesterday that one of my hon. Friends intended to oppose my application. For that reason, and because I do not want there to be any misrepresentation or misunderstanding—features which are only too common in Northern Ireland—I do not seek to ask leave to introduce my Bill today.

Orders of the Day — TENANTS' RIGHTS, ETC. (SCOTLAND) BILL

As amended (in the standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 1

REPEAL OF PROVISIONS RELATING TO INCREASE OF RECOVERABLE RENT ON ACCOUNT OF IMPROVEMENTS

'(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, sections 24, 29 and 30 of the 1971 Act, all of which relate to increase of recoverable rent on account of improvements, shall cease to have effect.
(2) Where a notice of increase has been served by the landlord under subsection (2) of the said section 24 before the commencement of this section, the said sections 24, 29 and 30 shall continue to apply in relation to the rent increase to which the notice relates as they applied before the said commencement.'.—[Mr. Rifkind.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this, we may take Government amendments Nos. 216 and 217.

Mr. Rifkind: Section 24 of the 1971 Act enables a landlord to increase the rent for a regulated tenancy, for which there is no fair rent registered, by 12J per cent. of the cost of certain improvements that have been made. Little use has been made of the provisions, and they fit somewhat uneasily with the other two ways in which rents can be increased.
The effect of the new clause will be that in future the only ways in which rent can be increased to take into account improvements or for any other reason will be by rent agreements between the landlord and the tenant, or by the matter being referred to the rent machinery in order that a new fair rent can be registered. That seems a much more straightforward system, rather than continuing with the power that has rarely been used in the past. The amendments are consequential on the new clause and I recommend them to the House.

Mr. Bruce Millan (Glasgow, Craigton): I preface my remarks by saying that it was with considerable dismay that we saw the large number of amendments and new clauses tabled by the Government. Many were tabled at the last minute, and we even had a starred new clause for consideration.
That is an abuse of the procedures of the House. In some cases, the amendments arise out of discussions in Committee and it is proper for the Government to table appropriate amendments on Report in those circumstances. Some amendments arise out of matters raised by the Opposition and I have no complaint about them, either. However, many of the new clauses, including new clause 1, do not fall into that category. They raise separate issues that do not arise out of debates in Committee or on Second Reading. That is an unsatisfactory way to proceed.
No doubt the Minister will say that many of the new clauses, including new clause 1, are basically technical, but it is not a matter of the House accepting the hon. Gentleman's word for that. We ought to be able to make our own inquiries about the effects of the new clauses. When they are tabled at the last minute, and often in complicated or obscure terms—as amendments to previous pieces of legislation that turn out to have been amended subsequently, anyway—it is difficult for us to know what the Government are doing.
The Under-Secretary has kindly supplied me with notes on the new clauses. That is helpful, and nothing that I say is meant to be grudging in that respect. However, while that is a courtesy to me, which I appreciate, other hon. Members are equally entitled to know what the Government are doing.
There are so many new clauses that they almost represent a new Bill. That is an unsatisfactory way of legislating. I hope that the Government will take that point on board, because none of us has had time for consultation with outside interests on the new clauses, some of which could significantly affect the interests of large numbers of people outside. That is undesirable, particularly in housing legislation, where whatever we do has a considerable impact outside.
I do not intend to do more than raise one or two points on the new clauses, mainly in the interests of clarification. However, I hope that the Under-Secretary will not take that to mean that I consider the new clauses to be unimportant.
It may be that certain points will have to be raised in another place. I should like to see amendments made to a number of new clauses. If we were dealing with the Bill in different circumstances and did not have a substantial amount of additional business to get through today and tomorrow I would have tabled amendments, despite all the difficulties with which we have been faced.
I hope that in another place the Government will take account of the fact that there will have been no substantive discussion of the new clauses in this House. I do not wish to delay the House unnecessarily, because we have some important issues to deal with later. On this new clause I simply say that if the Minister tells the House that the provisions relating to increases in rent and rates to take account of the cost of improvements have been little used, I accept that there is a case for abandoning those provisions.
The provisions affect the interests of landlords and tenants, and I suspect that most hon. Members have not had an opportunity of making inquiries to see whether these amendments are acceptable. In this case we take the Minister's word on trust. I am willing to do that on this new clause, but before the Bill goes to another place it may be that, following inquiries, we shall wish to have matters raised in the other place that are not easily raised in the House today. I hope that the Minister will take my remarks in the spirit in which they are intended. I do not object to new clause 1.

Mr. Gordon Wilson (Dundee, East): I wish to comment briefly on new clause 1. Among the new clauses and amendments discussed in Committee was one that I presented to give additional powers to rent assessment committees to impose obligations for repairs to be carried out. It seems that new clause I suggests that rent can be increased after repairs have been carried out. That is the obverse of what was discussed in Committee.
Will the Minister offer any comment on that and say particularly why, on reconsideration,

he has found it difficult to accept that rent assessment committees should have the power to restrict rent increases where landlords fail to carry out repairs to those properties that are deficient?
I share the concern of the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) about the flood of Government amendments. Those of us who served on the Standing Committee were always delighted to see Government amendments flowing from the amendments that we had tabled, or at least from points that arose during the course of debate.
Will the Minister explain what has gone wrong with the parliamentary draftsman who has changed the Bill in this fashion at this late stage? Would it not have been more satisfactory if these technical changes had been incorporated in the original version of the Bill, so that they could have been discussed in Committee, where more time is available? I respect any Government who come forward with changes, but perhaps the Minister has become over-enthusiastic in his treatment of the House this afternoon.

Mr. Rifkind: I say in reply to the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) and the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) that I regret there are a substantial number of Government amendments. I believe that it will be helpful to the House to know how those amendments are constituted.
There are 156 Government amendments. Of these, 27 are in specific response to undertakings given in Committee. A further 90 are drafting or technical amendments mainly consequential on Opposition amendments accepted in Committee and as a result of undertakings given. That is a total of 117 amendments.
Of the remainder, 23 are repeals of various provisions in the schedules and are in no way new material. Sixteen only of the grand total of 156 introduce any significant element of new policy, as does new clause 1. The House will, therefore, see that over 90 per cent. of the provisions arise either directly as a result of deliberations in Committee when Opposition amendments were accepted or where undertakings were given to consider them.
In responding specifically to the question from the hon. Member for Dundee, East about rent assessment committees I can say that when such a committee presently considers an application for a rent increase it will normally consider whether such an increase is appropriate or not, given the existing condition of the property. It would be quite inappropriate for a rent assessment committee, or a rent officer for that matter, to say that the condition of a property justified an increase but that an increase would not be granted unless a landlord made further improvements.
The new clause provides that where improvements have taken place, instead of using the somewhat archaic system of the 12½ per cent. procedure it is more appropriate to reach either a new fair rent registered in the normal way or, where landlord and tenant are agreed, to use a voluntary rent agreement. That is a more sensible way of recognising improvements that have already taken place. That is the concern of the new clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2

MODIFICATIONS OF SECTION 5A OF THE 1971 ACT

'(1) Section 5A of the 1971 Act (no protected tenancy where landlord's interest belongs to resident landlord) shall, in relation to a tenancy granted before or after the commencement of this section, be amended as follows—

(a) in subsection 3(a) for "14" there shall be substituted "28" ;
(b) in subsection 3(e) for "12" there shall be substituted "24" ; and
(c) in subsection (4), after "3" there shall be inserted "(a) or (b)".'.—[Mr. Rifkind.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 10—Resident Landlords.

Mr. Rifkind: New clause 2 modifies the provisions of the 1971 Act relating to the status of a tenant of a resident landlord following either the death of the landlord or the sale of the property. The

clause extends from 14 days to 28 days the period within which an incoming resident landlord must either move in or notify the tenant of his intention to move in within six months.
The clause extends from one year to two years the time in which the executors are allowed to wind up the estate. It also allows the executors of a deceased resident landlord to recover possession from the tenant under the same procedure as applies for a resident landlord. Experience has shown that the existing time periods are too short, and I think that the House will agree that it is more sensible that a longer period be permitted.
New clause 10 is concerned with the letting of parts of flats in purpose-built blocks. The combined effect of the provisions of the Rent (Scotland) Act 1971 ensured that any letting by a landlord of part of the house in which he resided would be subject to the limited jurisdiction of part VII of that Act. This provision, however, was included to prevent a landlord occupying one flat in a tenement block of flats and claiming the resident landlord exemption for any other flats in the tenement that he rented.
However, as drafted the provisions of the 1971 Act gave full Rent Act protection to tenants of landlords who rent off part of their flat in a tenement block. That was never the intention. As I have already explained, purpose-built blocks of flats were specifically excluded in order to prevent tenancies of all separate flats in the block from being part VII contracts simply because the owner happened to live in one of them.
As a result of the new clause, letting off part of a flat in a tenement block by a resident landlord will be a part VII contract in the same way as if the landlord were living in any kind of house other than a tenement flat. The position of existing tenants is unaffected. They will continue to have full security of tenure.
I recommend the new clauses to the House.

Mr. Millan: I do not have any particular point to make on new clause 10 except to say that this is an extremely complicated area of the law. It is difficult to get the legislation to do exactly what one wishes it to do and not to do other things as a side effect. But, as far as I can judge, new clause 10 is all right.
I am not completely happy about subsection (1)(c) of new clause 2 concerning a deceased resident landlord. The effect of the new clause will be to make it easier to recover possession from a tenant of a deceased landlord than it is now. I accept that in the circumstances of the death of a landlord one must take account of the interests of the executors. However, one must also take account of the interests of the tenant who is, presumably, not responsible for the death of the landlord but who, nevertheless, may find himself losing his home. I am not sure that we have got the balance right here.
I raised a similar point in Committee, though in a slightly different context, on clause 52 in relation to a regulated tenancy. I do not wish to pursue the point now. I simply say that, while I agree with paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1) of new clause 2, I am doubtful about paragraph (c). Though we do not press the matter at the moment, I would certainly like to look at it before the Bill goes to another place.

Mr. Rifkind: The purpose of the provision is that the tenant should neither benefit nor lose out as a result of the death of a resident landlord. The purpose is to give the executors of the resident landlord exactly the same rights as the resident landlord would have had if he were still alive. That seems to be a reasonably fair approach.

Mr. Millan: In these circumstances, the resident landlord is no longer alive and the situation is different. It does not follow logically that the tenant should be treated in exactly the same way as if the resident landlord were still alive. This is a matter that I wish to consider before the Bill goes to another place.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added the Bill.

New Clause 3

AMENDMENT OF SECTION 21(2)(b) OF THE 1971 ACT

'Section 21(2)(b) of the 1971 Act shall be amended by substituting for the words "section 7 of the Housing Rents and Subsidies (Scotland) Act 1975 "the words" section 36 of the

Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980 "and by adding after the words" the date "the words" (which may be any date during a rental period)".'.—[Mr Rifkind.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The effect of the clause is to enable increases of rent to be recovered for parts of statutory rental periods. The wording of the existing phasing rules in the Housing Rents and Subsidies (Scotland) Act 1975 is based on what was at that time the commonly held view that a notice of increase could take effect only from the beginning of a rental period. That view has been held to be incorrect in a subsequent court of judgment in the case of Avenue Properties (St. John's Wood Ltd.) v. Aisinzon in 1976, which held that a rent increase could take place during a rental period. Although there has not been a specific Scottish judicial decision on this issue, there is some doubt arising out of the English decision in an identical situation. It seems sensible to adapt the legislation to reflect the judgment of the court.

Mr. Millan: This is an area of the law in which there has been difficulty. The English decision has caused a certain amount of uncertainty. I am not clear on the exact definition of a rental period. That is not defined in the new clause. What does it mean? Does it mean the period over which rent is paid, which would mean that if the rent is paid weekly the rental period is a week, if it is paid monthly it is a month and if it is paid quarterly it is a quarter of the year?
The definition will make a substantial difference in some instances. If the tenant is paying a weekly rent it will not matter very much whether an increase takes place at the beginning or during the middle of the rental period. However, it will make a substantial difference if the rental period is as long as a year. There is no definition in the clause. Presumably rental period is defined elsewhere. I hope that the Minister will help us and tell us where the definition is to be found.

Mr. Rifkind: I cannot tell the right hon. Gentleman exactly where it is defined, if it is defined anywhere. I suspect


that a definition is to be found. Much depends on the agreement that has been reached between the tenant and the landlord. It can be weeks or months depending on the agreement that is reached between the parties when the lease is determined.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 4

CONSENT OF TENANT TO CARRYING OUT OF WORKS

'Section SO of the 1971 Act shall be amended as follows—

(a) in subsection (2) the words "(whether a controlled or a regulated tenancy)" shall cease to have effect;
(b) at the end there shall be added the following subsection—"

(5) For the purposes of this section a dwelling-house satisfies the qualifying conditions if it is provided with all the standard amenities, it is in good repair having regard to its age, character and locality and disregarding internal decorative repair, and it meets the tolerable standards.".'.—[Mr. Rifkind.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 218.

Mr. Rifkind: The purpose of the new clause is to make minor technical amendments to section 80 of the 1971 Act. That section enables a landlord whose tenant refuses to grant his consent to the carrying out of works which will enable the dwelling house to satisfy the qualifying conditions to apply to the courts for an order authorising him to enter and carry out the works. The repeal by paragraph (a) of the words "(whether a controlled or regulated tenancy)" is in consequence of the abolition of controlled tenancies. The purpose of paragraph (b) is to insert in section 80 a definition of the qualifying conditions.

Amendment No. 218 is a consequential amendment following the abolition of controlled tenancies.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 5

AMENDMENT OF DEFINITION OF ' PRESCRIBED ' IN HOUSING (SCOTLAND) ACT 1974

' The definition of "prescribed" in section 49(3) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1974 shall be amended by inserting before "in relation to" the words "means prescribed by the Secretary of State and".'.—[Mr. Rifkind.]

Brought up, and read the First Time.

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The new clause clarifies the definition of the word "prescribed" in the Housing, (Scotland) Act 1974 by specifying who shall have the authority to prescribe. No change in the existing powers or arrangements will result.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 6

CANCELLATION OF ENTRIES IN REGISTER RELATING TO PART VII CONTRACTS AT INSTANCE OF LANDLORD

'After section 91 of the 1971 Act there shall be inserted the following section—
91A.—(1) Where a rent has been registered under section 89 of this Act but the dwelling-house has ceased to be subject to a Part VII Contract, an application to a rent assessment committee may be made by the landlord in accordance with this section for the cancellation of the registration.
(2) An application under this section shall not be enterlained before the expiry of three years from the date when the registration of the rent takes effect in accordance with section 89 of this Act.
(3) On an application under subsection (1) above the rent assessment committee shall, where subsections (1) and (2) above are complied with, cancel the registration, and shall make an entry in the register noting the cancellation and the date from which the cancellation takes effect.
(4) The president of the panel set up under Schedule 5 to this Act may, if he thinks fit direct that in considering applications made under subsection (1) above, the chairman sitting alone may exercise the functions of a rent assessment committee.
(5) An application under this section shall be in the prescribed form and contain the prescribed particulars.
(6) The rent assessment committee shall notify the applicant of its decision to grant or to refuse any application under this section and, where it grants the application, of the date from which the cancellation takes effect.".'.—[Mr. Rifkind.]

Brought up, and read the First Time.

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The purpose of the clause is to enable rents fixed more than three years ago for dwellings subject to part VII contracts to be cancelled provided that at the time application for cancellation is made the dwelling is not then subject to a part VII contract. The principle behind the clause has already been established by clause 42, which permits fair rents to be cancelled subject to the same conditions. It seems sensible that the same rules should apply for part VII contracts.

Mr. Millan: The Minister has said that the principle has already been established by clause 42 and that the new clause is applying the same principle to part VII contracts. The hon. Gentleman will remember that not all of my hon. Friends were happy about the principle in clause 42.
I am not convinced that the division that the new clause provides is necessary. I am not sure what benefit it is to anyone for these cancellations to take place. If this were purely a technical matter with there being no benefit or disbenefit to anyone, it would be far better for there to be an automatic cancellation of a registration after a certain period. For the cancellation to be made on the application of the landlord suggests to me—I think that it is suggested to some of my hon. Friends—that it will be done because there will be some advantage to the landlord. I suspect that that is so.
I do not suggest that we oppose the new clause, but I should not like the Minister to think that we consider the clause to be necessary or that we accept the principle in clause 42. I do not think that we do, and I do not think that a convincing reason was given for the clause in Committee.

Mr. Rifkind: We are dealing with a situation in which there is no longer a resident tenant—a lodger—living in the property. There may not have been such a presence for many years. The property may be sold to a new owner and there is an artificial situation in which technically a rent exists for a property which may not be used for the purpose for which the rent was established. It seems sensible to allow that provision to be removed. The right hon. Gentleman suggests that that might be done automatically,

but that is another matter. If the provision has been removed and it is considered appropriate in future to have a tenant again, the appropriate rent at that time would become a live issue. I accept that the right hon. Gentleman may wish to give further thought to the precise way in which this is done.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 7

AMENDMENT CF SECTIONS 17 AND 145 OF HOUSING (SCOTLAND) ACT 1966

' The Housing (Scotland) Act 1966 shall be amended as follows—

(a) in section 17 (power to make closing orders with respect to underground rooms), in subsections (2)(b) and (3), the words "with the consent of the Secretary of State" shall cease to have effect ;
(b) in section 145 (powers of dealing with land etc.), in subsection (7)—

(i) for the words "section 168 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1947" there shall be substituted the words "section 74 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973" ;
(ii) for the words from "Act of 1947" to the words "that Act" there shall be substituted the words "Act of 1973 in the exercise of any power under Part VI of that Act" ;
(iii) for the words "said section 168" there shall be substituted the words "said section 74".'.—[Mr. Rifkind.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 8—Duty of local authority to have regard to amenities of locality etc.—and Government amendments Nos. 211 and 213.

Mr. Rifkind: The new clause deals with two separate amendments to the Housing (Scotland) Act 1966. The first amendment is a relaxation of central Government control over local government. It removes the requirement on local authorities to obtain the Secretary of State's consent to any regulations governing their area which they make concerning ventilation, lighting and a number of other matters.
The second effect of the new clause is to update a provision which should


have been updated by the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 but which was overlooked. That measure provides that where the Secretary of State has given consent under subsection (6) to the sale of houses on certain terms the normal restriction on all disposals by a local authority—namely, that they cannot be sold at less than the best price without the Secretary of State's consent—does not apply. That should have been repealed by an earlier provision, but that was not done as a result of an oversight some years ago. It is appropriate that the oversight has now been remedied.
New clause 8 is an addition to the series of Government amendments made in Committee relaxing controls over local authorities. It relates to section 177 of the 1966 Act, which empowers the Secretary of State to give directions to local authorities in respect of artistic or amenity considerations, to require local authorities to appoint local advisory committees, to be furnished with any copies of recommendations, and to do various other matters in respect of these particular areas of housing policy. It seems appropriate that these should not be continuing powers imposed by, or available to, the Secretary of State. This, therefore, gives local authorities full discretion in this field.
The other amendments being taken with this are merely consequential on these particular matters.

Mr. Millan: I do not want to comment on new clause 7, but I should not like new clause 8 to go by without at least making one comment about it. I must confess that it was news to me that there was any power in the housing Acts for local authorities to appoint local advisory committees to advise them on artistic and amenity considerations when they build local authority houses. I am not aware of any of them having done that. The evidence of their not having done that is, unfortunately, all too famliiar to us in many parts of Scotland.
I make a serious point here. As I say, I had not realised that the provision apparently appeared in a piece of Labour Government legislation. It is a great pity that these local committees were not appointed. The power to appoint them, as I understand it, still rests with the local authorities. I make that as a perfectly serious point. I do not think that there is

any purpose now in the Secretary of State directing the authorities to appoint these committees, particularly as the housing programme is, in any case, grinding to a halt and they will have nothing to advise about.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 8

DUTY OF LOCAL AUTHORITY TO HAVE REGARD TO AMENITIES OF LOCALITY ETC.

'In fulfilling the duty imposed on it by section 177 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1966 a local authority shall no longer require to have regard to directions made by the Secretary of State and accordingly, in the said section 177—

(a) in subsection (1), the words from "artistic interest" to the end are repealed ; and
(b) in subsection (2) the words", and if required by the Secretary shall, "and the words from", and the authority"to the end are repealed.'.—[Mr. Rifkind.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 9

BOARD EXCLUDED IN CALCULATING RENT ALLOWANCES

'Section 21(1)(b) of the 1972 Act shall be amended by inserting after the word "relates" the words "or for board".'.—[Mr. Rifkind.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Existing legislation already provides that payments made in respect of furniture and services should be excluded from eligible rent when calculating rent allowances. The term "services" is not defined in the Act, but in the Government's view it should include payments in respect of board. However, to remove any doubt as to the treatment of the board element, the new clause adds specific reference to that.

I commend the clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 10

RESIDENT LANDLORDS

' In relation to tenancies granted after the commencement of this section section 5A(1) of the 1971 Act (no protected tenancy where landlord's interest belongs to resident landlord) shall have effect subject to the substitution for paragraphs (a) to (c) of the following paragraphs—

"(a) the dwelling-house (not being a whole flat in a purpose built block of flats) forms part only of a building ; and
(b) subject to subsection (2) below, the tenancy was granted by a person who, at the time when he granted it, occupied as his residence another dwelling-house which also forms part of the building ; and
(c) subject to subsection (3) below, at all times since the tenancy was granted the interest of the landlord under the tenancy has belonged to a person who, at the time he owned that interest, occupied as his residence another dwelling-house which also formed part of the building.".'—[Mr. Rifkind.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 11

INCREASES IN PENALTIES FOR OFFENCES RELATING TO HOUSES IN MULTIPLE OCCUPATION

'(1) The Housing (Scotland) Act 1966 shall be amended as follows—

(a) in section 100(3) for "ten pounds" substitute "fifty pounds" ;
(b) in section 102(3) for "ten pounds "substitute" fifty pounds" ;
(c) in section 103(4) for paragraphs (a) and (b) substitute "to a fine not exceeding £200" ;
(d) in section 110(1)(b) leave out the words from the second "or" to the end of the paragraph ;
(e) in section 111(5) for paragraphs (a) and (b) substitute "to a fine not exceeding five hundred pounds" ;
(f) in section 112(5) for "twenty pounds" substitute "fifty pounds" ;
(g) in section 185(2)—

(i) after "shall" insert "be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £200" ; and
(ii) for "twenty pounds" substitute "five hundred pounds".

(2) Schedule 7C to the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 shall be amended by deleting from the first column of the entry relating to the Housing (Scotland) Act 1966 the words from "where" to the end of the column.'.—[Mr. Rifkind.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Rifkind: Mr. Rifkind I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 232.

Mr. Rifkind: This clause provides for updating the penalties provided for in the Housing (Scotland) Act 1966 relating to houses in multiple occupation. The revised penalty structure increases monetary penalties and also favours fewer different levels of fine.
The new structure removes imprisonment for certain offences, in line with the general view that imprisonment is appropriate only for the most serious offences in this area.
The amendment taken with this is consequential on this new clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 12

AMENDMENT OF ENACTMENTS RELATING TO HOUSING ASSOCIATIONS

' (1) Section 5 of the Rent (Scotland) Act 1971 shall be amended as follows—

(a) in subsection (4) the words from the beginning to "fulfilled," are repealed ; and
(b) subsection (5) is repealed.

(2) Sections 64 and 65 of the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1972 are repealed.

(3) Section 66 of the said Act of 1972 shall be amended by substituting for the words "to (4) "the words", (2) and (4) ".

(4) Section 18 of the Housing Act 1974 shall be amended as follows—

(a) in subsection (2) the words "in such form as may be prescribed "are repealed ; and
(b) subsection (5) is repealed.'.—[Mr. Rifkind.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move, that the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 214, 226 and 227.

Mr. Rifkind: This clause provides for a number of minor amendments and repeals to housing association rent provisions.
Subsection (1) removes the financial conditions limiting the exclusion from Rent Act protection of registered housing association tenancies and the tenancies of co-ownership societies. All such tenancies should be so excluded regardless of the financial arrangements under which the houses were provided. Therefore, all housing associations would thereby obtain proper security.
Subsection (2) repeals section 64 of the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1972 which empowers the Secretary of State to fix a special rent limit when the previous rent limit exceeds a first registered rent and section 65 which lays down the procedures to be followed. The power has only been used once and is no longer necessary since revenue deficit grant is now available to meet any loss on rent income.
Subsection (3) removes the obligation on a registered housing association as regards tenancies which are not secure tenancies to include in a notice of rent increase reference to the tenants' right to terminate the tenancy.
Subsection (4) removes the obligation placed on housing associations, when a tenancy is converted into a regulated tenancy, to give notice in a prescribed form.
These provisions are no longer relevant, given the security of tenure that is now provided to tenants of registered housing associations under part II of the Bill.

Mr. Millan: The Minister said that in another part of the Bill security of tenure was given to housing association tenants. However, the provisions of the new clause act in the opposite direction as to the interests of tenants, by removing certain protections that they have at present in relation to rents. As I understand it, subsection (1) means that they no longer have the protection of the Rent Acts at all.
Subsections (3) and (4) also give rather less protection to tenants, in both cases, in relation to the notice that should be given to housing association tenants by the housing association itself.
I understand that the relationship between a housing association and its tenants is not the same as that between a private landlord and his tenants Nevertheless,

these amendments may not be as minor as the Minister suggested.
Were these provisions subject to consultation with the housing association movement in Scotland? What other consultations were there and what were the results of them?

Mr. Rifkind: The right hon. Gentle-man slightly misunderstood subsection (1). Its effect is to remove the financial conditions limiting the exclusion from Rent (Scotland) Act protection. Therefore, as a result of this deletion, all housing association tenancies will have protection rather than have it removed from them.
Under subsection (3), where there has been a notice of a rent increase, it is surely no longer necessary specifically to remind the tenant of his right to terminate the tenancy. That is a clear right which the tenant has, given the new rights of housing association tenants under the Bill. They, being members of a registered housing association, thereby have the protection with which the Bill provides them. Therefore, further provision is not necessary for these tenants.

Mr. Mullan: I am sorry to disagree with the Minister. As I understand it, subsection (1) does exactly the opposite of what he said. It does exactly what I said earlier. It excludes all the tenancies that we are talking about under this clause from Rent (Scotland) Act protection. That is what the Minister's notes on the clause say. He has misinterpreted the clause. I hope that he has given accurate accounts of some of the other clauses. As this is a removal of protection from tenants—whether it is important at the minute or not—has there been any discussion about it?

Mr. Rifkind: The point that I wished to make was that from now on, as a result of the Bill, those who occupy property belonging to a registered housing association will not need the protection of the Rent Acts, because they have the protection of this Bill. Under part II, tenants of a registered housing association will have full security of tenure and other rights that go with i and those rights will in future be available to council tenants as well. Only tenants of a non-registered housing association will need the continued protection of the


Rent Acts, and they are not affected by subsection (1).

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 13

EFFECT OF REGISTRATION OF RENT

'(1) For section 44 of the 1971 Act (effect of registration of rent) there shall be substituted the following section—

44.—(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, the registration of a rent for a dwelling-house takes effect, if the rent was determined by the rent officer, from the date when it was registered.

(2) If (by virtue of section 40(3A) of this Act) an application for registration of rent is made before the expiry of the period of 3 years referred to in subsection (3) of that section, the registration of a rent for the dwelling-house does not take effect before the end of that period.
(3) If, on application for the registration of a different rent, the rent officer confirms the rent for the time being registered, the confirmation or that rent takes effect from the date when it is noted in the register.
(4) If the rent for a dwelling-house is determined by a rent assessment committee, the registration of that rent takes effect from the date when the committee make their decision.
(5) The date from which the registration or confirmation of a rent takes effect shall be entered in the register.
(6) As from the date on which the registration of a rent takes effect any previous registration of a rent for the dweling-house ceases to have effect.
(7) Where a valid notice of increase under any provision of Part III of this Act has been served on a tenant and, in consequence of the registration of a rent, part but not whole of the increase specified in the notice becomes irrecoverable from the tenant, the registration shall not invalidate the notice, but the notice shall, as from the date from which the registration takes effect, have effect as if it specified such part only of the increase as has not become irrecoverable.".

(2) In section 21(3) of the 1971 Act (limit of rent during statutory periods) for the words "on which the rent was registered" there shall be substituted the words "from which the registration of the rent took effect".
(3) For section 40(4) of the 1971 Act (meaning of a "relevant date" in relation to applications for registration of rent) there shall be substituted the following subsections—

"(4) In this section and section 41 of this Act, "relevant date", in relation to a rent which has been registered under this Part of this Act, means the date from which the registration took effect or, in the case of a registered rent which

has been confirmed by the rent officer, the date from which the confirmation (or, where there have been two or more confirmations, the last of them) took effect.
(4A) For the purposes of subsection (4) above, where a rent is registered as a result of a decision of a rent assessment committee the date from which that registration took effect shall be taken to be the date on which the rent determined by the rent officer was registered or, as the case may be, the confirmation of the registered rent by the rent officer was noted.".

(4) In paragraph 9(2) of Schedule 6 of the 1971 Act (procedure on application for registration of rent), for the word "accordingly" there shall be substituted the words "of their decision and, in the case of the determination of a rent, of the date on which their decision was made.".'.—[Mr. Rifkind.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 162.

Mr. Rifkind: The purpose of the clause is to amend the provisions in the Rent (Scotland) Act 1971 which fix the date from which the registration of a fair rent takes effect. The clause provides a simplification of these rules. It provides that both increases and deductions in rent will take effect from the date that the rent officer registers the rent or, where there is an objection to his figure, the date when the rent assessment committee gives its decision. Similarly, it provides for the three-year registration period to be calculated from the date on which the rent officer registers the rent that he has fixed.
With that explanation, I commend the new clause to the House.

Mr. Millan: This is a long and complicated new clause which makes some important changes in the procedures for determining when a new rent shall take effect. I understand that one effect will be that in certain cases the rent may be increased earlier than under existing legislation if we pass the clause. Even under existing legislation, when a rent officer determines a new rent, that rent cannot take effect until there has been a notice from the landlord to the tenants concerned. I do not think that this is a better provision.
I am not happy about a provision which allows the rent to be increased from the date of the rent officer's determination without a further notice from the landlord. I have some outstanding cases of disputed rents in my constituency and I am not happy about the procedures for dealing with them.
I was dealing with one case in my constituency only yesterday. The rents were registered from 4 January this year. The tenants concerned had notice from the rent assessment committee only at the end of May and the beginning of June that there were to be hearings regarding these rents.
I understand that under the new clause, as under existing legislation, if the rent assessment committee comes to a subsequent determination of a different rent, then, if it is an increase, the new rent will not be payable until the date of the determination by the rent assessment committee. In that respect—I hope that I have got the law right—my constituents are protected.
The point that I want to draw to the Minister's attention is that there was a delay of three months before the rent assessment committee followed the standard procedures by telling the tenants that there had been an objection and that there would have to be a hearing. There was a delay of three months with no satisfactory reason for it.
In cases of rent registration where there may ultimately be an appeal to the rent assessment committee, it is difficult for tenants to know exactly how they stand in relation to rents at any particular time. One advantage of the present provision, even if the rent assessment committee is not involved, is that it provides a procedure which makes the landlord send a notice to the tenant concerned. The tenant, having got the appropriate notice, may then see the date from which the new rent is payable. If we make it automatic, then, unless the procedures are such that the tenant is informed in some way very quickly after the new rent has been registered, he may find himself innocently accumulating arrears, because there is no obligation on the landlord to demand the new rent immediately. If the landlord does not demand the new rent immediately, arrears may accumulate in a

wholly unsatisfactory way. The existing provision prevents that from happening.
I am not convinced that we should change the procedures to allow the new rent to be exigible immediately it is registered. If there were no delays and so on, that would be reasonable. However, I suggest, from some experience of these matters in my constituency, that tenants can easily become confused. It is unsatisfactory that they should innocently get into rent arrears by not understanding what their rent is or, for that matter, not having proper notice of it.
I ask the Minister to look into these procedures. I understand that when the matter goes to the rent assessment committee there is protection in that any further increase cannot be asked for by the landlord until the committee has made its determination. However, I should like to be assured that when the rent assessment committee has made its determination the tenants are informed right away and that it does not take several weeks to send out the notices. If it does—sometimes increases can be substantial for individual tenants—arrears can accumulate. That is highly unsatisfactory. If we are to make the changes proposed in the new clause, we must be sure that the procedures will work speedily so that tenants are not innocently disadvantaged and put in financial difficulty.

Mr. Rifkind: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that there is no change as a result of the new clause in the amount of notice required to be given to the tenant of a rent increase. Whatever else the new clause does, it does not affect the notice which has to be given to the tenant. I shall certainly consider the points made by the right hon. Gentleman to see whether any further changes may be required as a result of the new clause.
I should have referred earlier to amendment No. 162. The amendment brings housing associations into line with landlords generally in the private rented sector in the event of an application being made for re-registration of a fair rent within the last three months of the period of three years from the effective date of the previous registration. In such circumstances, the amendment prevents the new registration from taking effect before the expiry of the three-year period from the


effective date of the previous registration. This clearly is a desirable protection for tenants and I am sure that it will have the support of the House as a whole.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 14

EXTENSION OF RENT ALLOWANCES

' Part II of the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1972 (Rent rebates and allowances) shall be amended as follows—

(a) in subsection (4) of section 16 (rent allowances) by inserting at the beginning of paragraph (a) the words "a regional council,";
(b) in section 16 by adding after subsection 7 the following subsections—

"(8) Subsection (1) above and, in so far as they relate to rent allowances, sections 17 to 22 below shall, with any necessary modifications, apply in relation to a tenant to whom those previsions apply.
(9) A person shall not be precluded from receiving an allowance under an allowance scheme by reason only that he does not have exclusive occupation of the house which he occupies." :

(c) in section 22 (1) by inserting in the appropriate place the following definition—

hostel "means a building in which is provided, for persons generally or for any class or classes of persons, residential accommodation (otherwise than in houses) and either board or common facilities for the preparation of food adequate to the needs of those persons, or both.".'.—[Mr. Rifkind.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take new clause 15—Extension of rent allowance scheme.

Mr. Rifkind: In Scotland at present eligibility for rent allowance towards housing costs, with few exceptions, rests heavily on the Rent Acts. This dependence on the terms of existing Rent Act legislation has the effect of excluding certain forms of tenancy from entitlement to rent allowances. Therefore, some persons are denied assistance with their rent.
The main area of concern surrounds people who do not enjoy Rent Act protection because they do not have exclusive occupation of their accommodation. This category comprises mainly hostel dwellers who may occupy no more than a bed space in a dormitory. Therefore,

because they do not have the protection of the Rent Acts, their eligibility for rent allowance cannot be considered. The effect of the new clause will be to rectify this anomaly which, in principle, has excluded tenants of unfurnished houses, for example, owned by regional councils. This is another example of the anomalies which exist. Therefore, it is thought appropriate not to have, as it were, the specific criteria which have to be met, but to enable all those who may have problems in meeting their rent to consider whether their income justifies an application for a rent allowance.
As regards new clause 15, the current definition of "housing associations" was deliberately framed so as to exclude co-ownership societies from the rent allowance scheme, because houses owned by such associations are in the nature of owner-occupied houses rather than tenanted houses since an outgoing member qualifies for premium payments related to the increase in the value of the property during his term of occupation. However, the definition also has the effect, which was never intended, of excluding par value fully mutual registered co-operative housing associations where no premium payment related to the increase in the value of the house is paid to outgoing members. Those who are in that form of cooperative housing are more in the position of tenants than of potential owner-occupiers. It seems unfair that they should be excluded from the possibility of applying for a rent allowance or for the other protections available to tenants. New clause 15 seeks to correct that problem.

5 pm

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I welcome the two new clauses. I was a critic of the Minister earlier in the proceedings in relation to the avalanche of new clauses and amendments tabled by the Government. I wish to say immediately that new clauses 14 and 15 are two examples that I welcome because they fill a gap. The Minister is to be congratulated on putting them forward.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: I welcome the two new clauses. In the course of the past few minutes we have passed a number of new clauses that bring into effect the commitments made by the Minister in Committee, and which,


in some cases, are in response to points raised in Committee, especially the new clause that removes the grounds for evading the Rent Acts by the provision of a spurious element of board. The Minister will recall that I raised that point in Committee.
One of the problems in the private rented sector with which we are familiar is the difficulty of advising tenants of their rights and their entitlement to allowances. It is especially difficult to get that across in the context of piecemeal reforms such as those that we are considering tonight. Will the Minister consider, with his officials, what appropriate publicity could be given to the new rights? A number of tenants in Scotland are caught by evasion of the Rent Acts under the spurious provision of board. They are unlikely to read the Hansard report of the debate, and, unless other steps are taken, the rights that we are conferring may turn out to be nugatory.

Mr. Rifkind: I acknowledge the force of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook), and thank him and the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) for welcoming the provisions. I shall consider the ways that might be appropriate to ensure that rights under these provisions are known by those who might benefit from them.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 15

EXTENSION OF RENT ALLOWANCE SCHEME

' In the definition of "housing association" in section 78 (interpretation) of the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1972 there shall be added at the end the words—
where under the terms of the tenancy agreement or of the agreement by which the tenant became a member of the association or otherwise he (or his personal representatives) will be entitled, on his ceasing to be a member and subject to any conditions stated in either agreement, to a sum calculated by reference directly or indirectly to the value of the house.".'.—[Mr. Rifkind]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 28

SPECIAL PROVISION FOR HOUSING ASSOCIATIONS

( ).—In this section—
registered association "means a registered housing association within the meaning of the Housing Act 1974; and
registered society" means a housing association which is a registered society within the meaning of section 74 of the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965 and whose rules restrict membership to persons who are tenants or prospective tenants of the association and preclude the granting or assigning of tenancies to persons other than members.—[Mr. Rifkind.]

Brought up, and read the first time.

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 97 and 192.

Mr. Rifkind: Tenancies of co-ownership housing associations registered with the Housing Corporation are excluded from part II of the Bill by paragraph 9 of schedule 1. That is for the reason that I mentioned earlier, namely, that a person in that position does not require that form of protection. However, there are also an unknown number of unregistered co-ownership associations. The new clause replaces paragraph 9 of schedule I with a more comprehensive set of provisions to clarify the position of that group of associations. In addition to the provisions for registered co-ownerships currently contained in the Bill, it provides that the security of tenure provisions of part II of the Bill shall apply to unregistered co-ownerships, and provides also that any registered co-ownership association which for some reason ceases to be registered must inform its tenants within 21 days that they have become secure tenants. In addition, it excludes from security of tenure fully mutual co-operative housing associations—that is, co-operatives whose members are all tenants, and all of whose tenants are members. Clearly the nature of such a co-operative does not require that form of provision.
The other amendments taken with the new clause are consequential. I commend the new clause to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 16

DISPOSAL OF DWELLING-HOUSES IN RURAL AREAS

'.—(1) Notwithstanding section 4 of this Act, where a dwelling-house purchased by exercise of a right under Part I of this Act is situated in an area legislated by order of the Secretary of State as a rural area, the landlord may impose a limitation on the freedom of the purchaser to dispose of the dwelling-house m the manner specified below.
(2) The limitation is, subject to subsection (4), that, until such time (if any) as may be notified in writing to the landlord there will be no disposal without the written consent of the landlord ; but that consent shall not be withheld if the disposal is to a person satisfying the condition stated in subsection (3) below.
(3) The condition is that the person to whom the disposal is made (or, if it is made to more than one person, at least one of them) has, throughout the period of three years immediately preceding the application for consent, either—

(a) had his place of work, in the rural area ; or
(b) had his only or principal home in such an area.

(4) If the Secretary of State consents, the limitation specified in subsection (2) above may be replaced by the following limitation, that is to say, that until the end of the period of ten years beginning with the purchase of the dwelling-house there will be no disposal unless—

(a) the purchaser has offered to reconvey the dwelling-house to the landlord for a consideration equal to the amount agreed between the parties or determined by the district valuer as being the amount which is to be taken as the value of the dwelling-house at the time the offer is made (subject to the recovery or discount on early re-sale under section 6 of this Act) ; and
(b) the landlord has refused the offer or has failed to accept it within one month after it was made.

(5) Nothing in this section shall prevent a court from making an order transferring the dwelling-house or part thereof to the spouse of the purchaser, or a successor from inheriting the title to the dwelling-house.'.— [Mr. Cook.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Cook: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take the following amendments :
No. 66, in clause 4, page 9, leave out lines 10 to 30.
Government amendment No. 68, page 9, line 15, after ' instrument ', insert

' subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament'
No. 9, in page 9, line 16, leave out subsection (7)
No. 69, in page 9, line 17, leave out paragraph (a).
No. 70, in page 9, line 17, leave out ' one-third ' and
No. 71, in page 9, line 21, leave out paragraph (b).
No. 72, in page 9, line 24, at end insert :
' or the Secretary of State is satisfied that there is an unsatisfied local demand for houses.
255, in page 9, line 24, at end insert :
' and

(c) the housing authority is satisfied that further sales will unduly disturb the balance of housing set out in the housing plan submitted to the Secretary of State (subject to the Secretary of State's considering such a submission to be reasonable) '

Mr. Cook: I hope that the House will not think me discourteous if I have to leave the Chamber during the course of this debate. Both I and my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. O'Neill) are in the embarrassing position that we are also members of the Finance Bill Committee. I am speaking with one eye trained on the television Annunciator in the Chamber, so that I can see from the position from which I am speaking what is happening in that Committee.
It is fortunate that we are having an opportunity to debate the position of council house sales in rural areas at an early stage of our deliberations on Report. Unfortunately, when we considered the matter in Committee, we had time only for a rather cramped and confined debate. That may help to explain why, at the end of the day, we arrived at an amendment that is, frankly, pointless and meaningless in the effect that it will have in protecting the needs of those in rural areas who are seeking a house to rent rather than a house to own.
Looking at the text of the amendment that the Committee, perhaps ill-advisedly, accepted late at night, I find it difficult to see it as anything other than an exercise in whimsy. It turns on three separate tests. Local authorities in rural areas will be able to apply a pre-emption right to the


future sale of council houses if, first, one-third of their council houses have already been sold. The clause is activated only at a point when a dangerous reduction has already been achieved in the level of council houses within their areas.
Secondly, not only are the local authorities required to lose one-third of their housing stock, but there must be evidence that an unreasonable number of those houses have become second homes. There is no definition in the Bill, or any indication during the course of the debate, of what the Minister regards as an unreasonable proportion. Would it be one-half of the one-third that have been sold, one-quarter, or 10 per cent.? We do not know. The ignorance under which we labour is worrying. The pre-emption rights do not automatically come into action if those two tests are met. They come into action only if, having considered those two criteria, the Secretary of State graciously assents to a petition from the local authority to the effect that it may have a pre-emption right.
I regard that solution as profoundly unsatisfactory, especially because it turns on the threat to local housing from the second home market. There is a danger that houses sold under the Bill will become second homes. Some hon. Members may have seen the circular issued by Shelter, in which it quotes a letter from the Western Isles which refers to 10 timber chalet houses on the Island of Vatersay, and states :
Immediately adjacent to perhaps one of the most beautiful and sheltered beaches in the whole country.
Such houses would naturally represent a real attraction to anybody seeking a second home in Scotland. I do not think that the House should lightly disregard the real concern of the Western Isles council that those houses might become second homes.
It is not sufficient to say to the Western Isles council "After you have sold one-third of your housing stock, and after half of the houses sold have become second homes, we will consider giving you a pre-emption right". Although that threat exists, the fact remains that possibly, during the course of the debate on the rural areas, undue weight was attached to the threat of council houses disappearing into second homes. One of the ironies of the debate in Committee was that the

very hon. Members who urged us to accept the amendment said that the threat from second homes had been exaggerated. I observe that the hon. Members who participated in that debate are unable to join us tonight. I am sure that we shall have a full debate on the issue——

Mr. Rifkind: I should point out that the hon. Members to whom the hon. Gentleman is referring are serving on the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill, and are unable to be here at this time.

Mr. Cook: I am tempted to suggest that we should welcome an adjournment of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill Committee in order that those hon. Members could attend this debate.

Mr. Rifkind: The Government were willing to adjourn the Committee, but the Opposition requested that the Committee sit this afternoon.

Mr. Cook: I am afraid that we have had a glimpse into the internal workings of the Opposition, which are clearly getting a little rusty.
I had better return to my speech. As I was saying, Conservative Members, who unfortunately are unable to be with us, for the reasons given by the Minister, explained that they regarded the threat from second homes as exaggerated, yet in the Bill they have created a protection for the rural areas that is triggered off only if there is a substantial demand for second homes. In other words, on their own definition that not many council houses will become second homes, these subsections will remain dead for the life of this statute, which I hope will not be too long.
Moreover, there is some force in their argument. I believe that the threat to the rural area housing stock from the effects of the Bill rests on two other arguments. It rests first, on the argument about the balance of the housing stock between houses available for letting and those available for owner-occupation. It is a delicate and sensitive task in any housing stock to strike a balance between the two. But in a rural area, where there will be only a few houses in any one settlement, the sale of the few council houses in a village can wholly alter the balance and transform such a village into an entirely owner-occupied community, which will not leave available for letting houses for


those young families who want to go on living and working in the community, but who cannot afford to buy a house in it.
That is particularly marked, as such council houses as there are in the rural areas are frequently concentrated in the borough areas. Until local government reform in 1974 there was a reticence on the part of the landward areas to build council houses. In Orkney, not one council house was built outside the boroughs until 1974. Even to this day, half of all the council houses in the Western Isles are in Stornoway. Plainly, a small number of sales from the very small stock of council houses outside those boroughs will drastically reduce the number of houses available for letting.
One can only remind the Minister of the report that has been submitted to him by his officials. It is a study of five rural areas, in which they say :
Many people are not able to command incomes sufficient to meet their basic housing needs in the private sector and reliance on the local authority as a major force in adequate housing provision will continue and probably increase 
The tragedy is that at the very time when officials in the SDD conclude that reliance on the local authority will probably increase, we are passing a Bill that provides no protection against a reduction in the stock of local authority housing, on which greater reliance is expected to be placed in future years.
The other reason why we should worry about the effects of this legislation on the rural areas relates to the threat not from the purchase of houses to be used as second homes, but from what I believe to be a real threat that council houses in rural areas adjacent to our central belt will be acquired by commuters. Not every rural area is north of the Highland fault line or safely tucked away on an island from which one cannot commute to Glasgow or Edinburgh. A large number of rural areas are within ready motoring or railway distance of those two main centres. Over the last two decades we have seen the spread of commuters to owner-occupied estates in many of those rural areas. What we now face is the real danger that those commuters will appear on the council estates, taking over some of the most attractive council houses in some of the most attractive villages.
I automatically think of East Lothian, and I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) with us. The East Lothian district council has properly recorded its anxiety that it may lose every house in Gifford, which would be an attractive investment for any tenant who wished to buy his council house. There is no doubt that any tenant acquiring a house in Gifford would find a lucrative market among the commuters who are already spreading around that corner of the county.
5.15 pm
Two weeks ago I took a train to Newcastle, where I addressed a meeting. During the journey the train drew up at Drem village. I looked out of the window and noticed that immediately adjacent to the village there are four council houses, with extensive gardens. They are immediately adjacent to a station to which there are frequent commuter trains. If one were seeking a speculative sale a few years hence, I cannot think of a better investment for a commuter seeking a house in the country with easy access to the city. I believe that there will be a real threat to houses in the rural areas if they are removed from the local housing stock for use in that way.
The Bill will not provide a shred of protection to East Lothian district council if that threat materialises, because it will be unable to say that those houses are being used as second homes. Those houses will remain in use as principal homes. Therefore, the mechanisms providing for their protection will not come into play. It is appropriate, therefore, to look afresh at the deliberations in Committee, and at the result of those deliberations, to see how we can improve them in order to provide greater strength and protection to the rural areas.
Some of my hon. Friends have tabled amendments, to which they will no doubt speak, in which they seek to amend the amendment that was carried in Committee. In my perhaps rather more extremist fashion I have proposed a total deletion of what was accepted in Committee and the substitution of another new clause. However, my new clause is not the product of fanatics beavering away in the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party or any other place from


where a bold Socialist programme may emerge. My new clause was drafted in the Department of the Environment and was promoted by the Minister for Housing and Construction during proceedings on the Housing Bill. As this is a new clause that was promoted by him in that legislation, one can take it that there is no division of principle between my modest new clause and the Government's. Indeed, were there a major issue of principle, I presume that a Minister would not have promoted a parallel new clause in the parallel Housing Bill for England and Wales.
My new clause provides a pre-emption right to local authorities in designating rural areas. For those hon. Members who have been following the text as printed by the compositor, I should perhaps clarify that it should refer to rural areas "designated" by the Secretary of State, and not "legislated", Draconian though the Government may be, they have not as yet given the Secretary of State powers to legislate without reference to Parliament.
I believe that there will be a wide degree of support among the rural areas for my new clause. After all, it is worth recalling that there has been a wide degree of anxiety among the rural authorities over the provisions of the Bill and the lack of protection to them. When we met in Committee we had available the results of a circular sent by Shelter to the rural district councils, which received 10 respondents, only one of which indicated that it was not opposed to the Bill. Nine of them indicated that they were strongly opposed to the way in which the Bill would affect their areas.
I challenge the Minister to say whether any rural district council or islands council has withdrawn its reservations about the Bill in the light of the protection that was provided in Committee. I am not aware of any local authority that has reviewed and dropped its anxities about the effect of the Bill on its area as a result of the feeble protection that the Committee saw fit to confer.
There is a certain irony in the Opposition seeking to protect the rural areas. It is predominantly Conservative Members who represent the areas that will be worst affected by their failure to protect those areas from the consequences of this

legislation. I hope that the Minister will not let that irony stand in the way of his looking seriously and favourably at the new clause. After all, the Government have run into some difficulty in the upper House over their policy in regard to rural areas. As we are about to send the Bill on its way to the House of Lords, I should not want the Minister to lose any sleep or his appetite over anxiety that the Duke of Norfolk might lead a rebellion on council house sales in the rural areas of Scotland.
That is not something that I would wish on the Minister, but I warn him that unless he accepts one of the amendments and strengthens the provisions to protect the rural areas he will fail to carry out his party's manifesto commitment that the circumstances of the rural areas would be taken into account. He will also be laying in store for himself and his Government a real degree of anger and outrage when young couples discover that there is no way in which they can rent a house without moving into the cities of Scotland.

Mr. David Steel: I strongly support the new clause moved by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook). He was correct in his arguments. Even if at the end of the day the Under-Secretary of State cannot accept this new clause, I hope that he will undertake to reconsider the effectiveness of what the Government have accepted in the Bill. I believe that the provision that they have made in response to the representations from the rural areas will not work. Therefore, there is no point in passing legislation that will prove ineffective, even for the purpose that the Government have sought to implement.
If we turn from the theory of the legislation to its practice on the ground, the Government are saying that they may be able to agree to local authorities putting some restriction on sales if they have already sold one-third of their stock. Before we can protect the rural areas—the villages and the valleys—in the Ettrick and Lauderdale district in my constituency from being denuded of their council stock, one-third of the houses in Galashiels will have to be sold. But that will not happen. The most attractive houses are in the valleys and in the rural


areas, and they will be swallowed up first. With the passage of time, the present tenants, having exercised their rights to buy, may then sell their houses to other tenants coming into the area, whether as holiday homes or second homes.
There is a housing scheme in my home village, Ettrick Bridge, consisting of four houses. That is a drop in the bucket compared with the total housing stock of the district council. I have no objection to those houses being sold to sitting tenants if they wish to exercise their right to buy, so long as the local authority has a right to repurchase on disposal.
In the rural areas—I do not think this is understood by hon. Members representing urban areas—there is a real problem for people who have lived all their lives in tied cottages on farms. When they retire, they have to move, or when they pass on and their widows are left with tied cottages, their widows have to move. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central said, in the old days, before the reform of local government, there were enormous difficulties in the rural areas because of the low level of housing stock, and often the housing authorities in the towns were insufficiently flexible in taking people on to their waiting lists. There was a gulf between the landward area and the burgh. Fortunately, that problem is no longer with us. But there is now the new problem of people who have lived all their lives in the countryside and who suddenly find that, when they wish to retire and to move into a local authority house, they have to move into the burgh way of life because there is no housing stock left in the rural areas. That is a serious social problem, and I do not think that this legislation, which no doubt has honourable intentions, and the amendments that were accepted in Committee, meet the problem in any way.
Like the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central, I agree that the danger is not entirely from the second home threat—although it is a real threat. There is also a threat from the growing strength of the commuter lobby. At Tweeddale, for example, there are some attractive areas within travelling distance of the city of Edinburgh where, if houses were sold

on the open market, they would go to people who would make them their primary homes, but eventually the local community and local authority would be deprived of housing stock. I have received strong representations on the matter from local authorities in my constituency, and I hope that the Government will consider it sympathetically.
My hon. Friend the Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) has also drawn my attention to the fact that the cutback in expenditure by the Government is already having a deleterious effect on the housing stock and the house building programme in rural areas. For example, Skye and Lochalsh was planning to build 65 new houses this year, but as a result of the cuts it will be able to build only 10. In Badenock and Strathspey, the housing plan indicated a need to build 300 more council houses in the next five years. The Government cuts have reduced that number to 32. As a result of other Government policy there is already real difficulty in the rural areas in expanding the housing programmes. If, on top of that, they find that their existing housing stock is eroded because of this legislation there will be even more difficulty.
In addition to this new clause, I have tabled amendment No. 255, which seeks to tackle the matter in a wider manner. It allows exemption from the provisions of the Bill where the
housing authority is satisfied that further sales will unduly disturb the balance of housing set out in the housing plan submitted to the Secretary of State (subject to the Secretary of State's considering such a submission to be reasonable).
That goes wider than merely having an effect on rural areas.
The right of the individual to purchase his council house is difficult to lay down from the centre. What may be good for Glasgow may not be good for Ettrick Valley, and vice versa. That is why there should be a wider, more flexible measure in the Bill. Whether or not the Minister accepts the new clause, or my amendment, it is essential that when the Bill goes to the other place there is more satisfactory provision to protect the interest of rural housing stock.

Mr. John Home Robertson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh Central, (Mr. Cook) for the way in which he moved the new clause and for his kind


references to my constituency, where the provisions of the Bill are likely to cause severe problems and create acute pressures on the limited housing stock that is at present available to let.
I spoke on this matter on Second Reading. I was not fortunate enough to be a member of the Committee, although my hon. Friends who spent 70 hours discussing the Bill in Committee may not agree that "fortunate" is the right word. On Second Reading I emphasised the need for sufficient houses to be available at reasonable rents throughout Scotland, particularly in rural Scotland, where there are not nearly enough council houses available—as the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) pointed out. I said then that the Government should not sell houses under such circumstances, and I cited my experience as a district councillor representing a rural ward in Berwick district.
During my brief tenure of office as a district councillor there were three council houses in the village of Burnmouth—an attractive fishing village—standing empty. They were pre-war houses that were in need of modernisation. The district council was not prepared to spend the money on modernising them, and it claimed that it could not find tenants for them. In due course, they were sold off. Having had a good deal of money spent on them, they are now being used as holiday homes. That is very nice for the people who have them, but it is a bit galling for those of my constituents in that part of Berwickshire who are living in overcrowded accommodation and who would dearly like to have had the opportunity to rent those houses.
5.30 pm
In another little village in my ward, the district council sold a house to a sitting tenant. I have no quarrel with that. Why should a sitting tenant not buy his house? What was unfortunate was that the council decided not to apply any pre-emption clause in the circumstances. A couple of years later the chap who owned the house decided to sell it, because he wanted to move elsewhere. It was sold on the open market because the district council did not use its option to buy it back. It is now standing partially occupied. That is in a village

in which there are only 12 council houses. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central has already indicated the far-reaching effects that the loss of a very small proportion of the available housing stock in an area such as that can have on the amount of housing that is available to let.
This is one of the most important areas of the Bill. I was a little surprised that of the 70-odd hours of debate in Committee, it appears that only half an hour was spent on this issue. The amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Lang), which was accepted by the Government, was not even debated. The amendment was to allow district and island councils to impose 10-year pre-emption conditions on houses in areas where one-third of the council houses had already been sold and where, in the view of the Secretary of State, an unreasonable proportion of those sold had become second homes.
We have been over that issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central and the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles are quite right to indicate that if the clause is applied as it stands it is simply a question of the Secretary of State's having the option of shutting the stable door long after far too many council houses have been disposed of. As it stands, the Bill is not helpful. It is worse than useless.
The key concern over sales of council houses in rural areas is not necessarily the problem of second homes, it is the severe lack of council housing in rural Scotland. According to the Scottish Office report "Housing in Rural Scotland"—which is not officially published ; it fell off the back of a lorry, I understand, but the Minister was kind enough to let me have a copy some months ago—in urban Scotland 58 per cent. of householders live in council housing, as compared with 38 per cent. in rural Scotland. The same report identified the need for more council houses in rural areas. I quote :
Many people are not able to command incomes sufficient to meet their basic housing needs in the private sector and reliance on the local authority as a major force in adequate housing provision will continue and probably increase.
There are 15,000 families on Scotland's rural housing waiting lists whom local


authorities classify as homeless, overcrowded or living in substandard accommodation. That figure does not take account of the large number of workers in tied accommodation, both in the public sector and on farms, who regularly need to be rehoused because of their inherent insecurity, which I think most of us on the Opposition Benches deplore.
When, under the previous Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) was piloting through the House legislation that abolished agricultural tied housing in England, local authorities, farmers and farm workers stated that they felt that the abolition of tied housing in Scotland was not necessary. Perhaps it would be useful to give the Minister fair warning that many people—not only Opposition Members and members of the Labour Party but the NFU and Mr. Henry Crawford, the secretary of the agriculture and forestry section of the Transport and General Workers Union in Scotland—are having second thoughts about this question, precisely because of the effect that the Bill will have on the availability of rented homes in rural areas of Scotland. All sorts of interests in the agriculture industry are now aware that the fact that there is likely to be a loss of a large number of council houses in rural Scotland will lead to a new campaign for the abolition of tied housing in Scotland, as has been done in England.
There is no doubt that the sale of council houses to sitting tenants in rural areas is in direct conflict with the acknowledged need for an expanding public areas is in direct conflict with the ackmajority of Scotland's rural local authorities, of all parties. The Minister ought to take that point on board.
The Government should be prepared to rethink the type of safeguards that need to be applied in rural areas. At the very least, they should consider accepting an amendment such as that which is before the House, which is based on what the Secretary of State for the Environment has already accepted for England. It is clear that this is a reasonable amendment, and that it ought to be accepted. Many housing authorities, and pressure groups such as Shelter, have indicated their concern

about the effect of council house sales and this part of the Bill. That applies not only to Labour authorities. The right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles has already cited the fact that Ettrick and Lauderdale district council is very unhappy about what the Government are doing. Ettrick and Lauderdale overlaps into my constituency, incidentally. Also, East Lothian district council has made it abundantly clear that rather than perform the Minister's role as a cut-price estate agent, it will do everything within the law to avoid selling any of its housing stock, whether it be in rural areas or elsewhere, because of its overriding responsibility to act as a housing authority.

Mr. Barry Henderson (Fife, East): A moment or two ago I heard the hon. Member say that if someone wanted to buy his house he ought to be allowed to do so. What he is now saying appears to be in contradiction to that.

Mr. Home Robertson: No, that was not the point that I was making. I accept the sale of council houses where there is sufficient housing stock available to let. Where that is not so, it is unreasonable and irresponsible to be flogging them off. What is more, there is ample evidence that the point of view that I have just stated is accepted by the people of Scotland. The Minister will recall the district council elections only last month. In the East Lothian district the Labour majority was increased, in spite of the fact that there was a strident Conservative campaign to bribe tenants with offers of the sale of their council houses to them on the cheap.
It is clear that tenants are not fooled by these bogus deals that are being offered. They are not fooled by an offer that could lead only to longer housing lists, particularly in rural Scotland. I sincerely hope that the Minister and the House will accept the new clause.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I rise to support the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) and the new clause. I think that most members of the Standing Committee on the Bill left it with considerable reservations about the effects of the Government's proposals in relation to rural housing. There was a great deal of opposition to the sale of council houses in urban areas, but it was recognised in


Committee that a fair number of the local authorities in rural areas also had profound reservations about the effects of the Government's intention to go ahead with the sale of houses in areas in which there had been a shortage of houses for letting.
The point has been readily made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central that in rural areas there is an entirely different pattern of housing tenure from that of urban areas. It would be difficult to find a fixed pattern in the rural areas of Scotland. We know only that the housing pattern is considerably different. The Government's arrangements provide very little control over sales. As a result, even fewer houses will be available to those who cannot afford to buy their own homes. If people cannot find houses, they may be forced to leave the district.
We must consider the problem of rural depopulation. Young people who do not have any capital and who wish to set up house in the locality will find that they cannot do so. They may be driven out. That factor has not been stressed sufficiently. My right hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) has been detained in the Standing Committee on the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill. However, he specifically wished me to refer to the Western Isles district council's opposition to the proposal. My right hon. Friend strongly supports that opposition. If there is no change in the Bill, it will lead to a shortage of houses and to rural depopulation. Age levels in rural areas will rise. There may be insufficient local authority housing for key workers and for incoming workers. One could spell out a variety of situations.
The Government do not see any difficulty about holiday homes or second homes. Dr. W. M. Mclntyre, of Edinburgh, sent me a copy of a letter dated 22 January 1980. It was sent by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. The Under-Secretary of State referred to the findings of the Darlington amenity research trust. Apparently, the trust reported on second homes in Scotland in 1977. The report showed that there had been no overall growth in the number of holiday homes since 1973. We do not have any information about the pattern of holiday homes between 1977 and 1980. However, more and more commuters are moving out of cities and into rural areas. They have an effect on housing stocks.

Such commuters can probably get a high price for their homes in city centres. They can command access to houses in rural areas. As a result, house prices in rural areas have increased and local people—particularly the young, who have been unable to get a council house but who wish to leave home—find that they are deprived of access to the market.
I should like to quote the last sentence of the answer from the Scottish Office. It refers to council houses. The Under-Secretary wrote :
If more are needed, it will be for the housing authority to make provision by allocating capital to new building programmes.
I admit that that letter was written a few months ago, before the Government's latest changes in housing finance. As every hon. Member will know, the amount of money available for new housing in Scotland has been slashed to the bone. As a result, no funds will be available for the provision of new houses to meet the shortage that the Government have admitted might result from the sale of existing housing stock.
5.45 pm
We appreciate that we cannot browbeat the Government, but the other place may be able to do that when they consider the Bill. The Government should bear in mind that local authorities, those who live in rural areas, and those who have studied the effects of the proposed changes are worried. The Government should consider some of the amendments that have been suggested this afternoon. I cannot speak with any authority about rural areas, as I do not represent one. However, I understand that the high cost and shortage of public transport, the closures of garages by the big petroleum companies and the restrictions on shopping mean that rural commuities are under considerable pressure. The sale of council houses may have a domino effect. A chain reaction may occur with serious consequences for local communities.
I support the new clause and the amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel). However, I believe that the Government should also consider amendments Nos. 69 and 72, which stand in my name. They relate to the amendment that the


Government accepted in Committee. At the time, I felt that that amendment was almost cosmetic, because it sought to deal with the considerable criticism that had come from local authorities. It tried to disarm that criticism. However, it had no effect on the Government's basic intention to dispose of houses in rural areas. If the Government have accepted the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Lang) they must accept that there is worry and concern about the impact of sales.
Perhaps I could suggest a further step. If the Government accept amendment No. 69, and if paragraph (a) is deleted—it lays down a restriction on the right to control sales through pre-emption to the standard of one-third of the dwelling houses sold—an artificial barrier will be removed. The figure of one-third is unnecessary and rigid. There is no reason why one-third should be the standard.

Amendment No. 72 would give the Secretary of State some discretion in relation to the arguments and reasons propounded by local authorities. There may be an unsatisfied demand for local council houses. It might be thought that pre-emption rights should apply earlier than the Government have proposed. If the Government accept amendment No. 72, the paragraph will read
An order under subsection (6) above should be made when … the Secretary of State is satisfied that an unreasonable proportion of the houses sold have been resold, and are not being used as the only or principal home of the owner, or the Secretary of State is satisfied there is an unsatisfied local demand for houses.
Where there is an unsatisfied local demand, it is essential that the local authority should have the right to apply for an order allowing it to build the right of pre-emption into the sales. That would allow local authorities to claw back houses to deal with local needs. The Government are depriving them of the opportunity to build alternative housing stocks and to replace those sold.

Mr. Russell Johnston: I would not argue with the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) on the general issue, but I wonder what he means by the phrase "unsatisfied local demand". It is somewhat vague. One could easily have a situation in which

there was no problem in the burghs but there was in the landward areas.

Mr. Wilson: That is a reasonable point. It would be covered by the terms in which the amendment is phrased. That would lead effectively to the right of the Secretary of State to use his judgment in the light of the arguments put forward. He would have to satisfy himself that there was an unsatisfied local demand. The Secretary of State would judge the meaning of the word "local", and there should be no difficulty in reaching such a judgment, especially as lawyers and parliamentarians are so fond of that word. The amendment would allow the Secretary of State the opportunity to consider the question. At present he is deprived of that opportunity.

Mr. Martin J. O'Neill: I am very pleased to follow the speech of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson). I am grateful for his support and only wish that he had been present on the night that we debated this matter in Committee. Then he would have been able to vote along the lines that he has just argued.
The new clause of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) would meet many of the misgivings expressed in Committee, when the Government accepted only a figleaf amendment. I use the expression "figleaf", because it covered very little. On the other hand, the nature of the so-called revolt was such that there was precious little to cover in the first place.
If we reached the stage at which one-third of the housing was sold it would be too late to act. Hon. Members have pointed out that the house letting systems, the queueing systems and the waiting lists of local authorities vary across the country. It is quite possible that in some very small hamlets there would be a gross distortion of the ownership of the housing stock in a short time. In that case the legislation might well be far too insensitive.
It is fair to say that we need a greater assurance about "unreasonableness" in relation to second homes. I do not have a constituency interest in second homes, but I have among my constituents an ever-increasing number who seek to buy houses in relatively remote but very attractive and centrally-located parts of


central Scotland. I refer to villages such as Standburn and Limerig which are fairly accessible to the motorways running through central Scotland. In the county of Clackmannan there are villages such as Forest Mill, in which there are only about 20 houses. In that case all the houses but one are owned by the local authority. The people who live in these places usually work in the villages or on the farms around them. Therefore, these problems are not peculiar to the nether reaches of the country. All of us with constituencies outside the urban areas can claim to have them. We can all realistically point to parts of our constituencies where these problems could arise.
The real difficulty is that the members of the work force in these areas do not receive particularly high wages. Therefore, the opportunities for young people with families to purchase houses outside the public sector are very limited. It is certainly fair to say that the quality of housing available outside the public sector, which such people could afford to buy, would be of such a nature that it would not be an economic proposition. I refer particularly to ruined cottages, which would need considerable work and renovation. Most young people with whom I am concerned have neither the time nor the money to buy such properties and bring them up to a tolerable standard.
We have seen the Scottish Development Department's report, which claims that there is a greater and increasing reliance on public sector housing in rural areas. In this instance it appears that the Department of the Environment has accepted the Scottish Development Department's report, although the Under-Secretary has chosen to ignore it for the ideological, doctrinaire reasons which were the hallmark of the manner in which he pushed through the Bill in the Standing Committee upstairs. I hope that the milder, more moderate counsel of the Secretary of State will secure a change of heart in the Government. However, I despair of that, because I know that at present the Scottish Office is just a puppet of the Whitehall machine and we can expect precious little in that respect.
The proposition that was put forward by the Department of the Environment for

England and Wales would, in this instance, be acceptable in Scotland. I am not prepared to extend tins argument to other parts of the legislation, but in this case the Department seems to have got it right. I am surprised about that, because it seems to have got everything else wrong. However, in this case it has shown a greater appreciation of the needs of rural areas. I hope that by accepting the new clause we can go some way towards allaying the fears of those who live in rural areas.

Mr. Russell Johnston: I wish to make only one brief point to supplement the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel). He referred to the problem caused by the cuts in the House building programme and the way in which this will exacerbate the difficulties in rural areas. This will not occur only in purely rural areas, or in areas where the majority of local authority housing stock has been built by the local authority. For example, in Inverness, which has a very long housing waiting list—to which I have drawn attention previously—the effect of the Government's cutback is that the Scottish special housing programme, which had planned about 305 houses in the burgh, is likely to be cut in half. That is an example of pressure of demand but it will be even more difficult to meet, particularly if stock is being sold off in an unrestrained and uncontrolled fashion.
The problem in Scotland is that the availability of local authority housing stock is uneven. It is not the same in the North and East as it is in the West. Therefore, it does not respond readily to an across-the-board treatment. The Government should earnestly consider some way of making allowances for the rural problem, which has been well emphasised tonight, and equally, for the problem faced by quite large burghs which lack the necessary stock to meet the demand that clearly exists.

Mr. Gavin Strang: Due to another commitment, I was unable to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) move the new clause, and I hesitate to participate in the debate. However, this is an important matter, and one of the areas in which the Government are most vulnerable in this legislation.
6 pm
There is considerable opposition among Government supporters to the effects that the Bill will have on rural housing. The attitude taken by Scottish Ministers should be compared with the attitude of English Ministers in regard to rural housing. There is an overwhelming case for reversing the Government's approach to disposing of council houses in rural areas. That is why the Government are vulnerable.
I shall confine myself to one issue—the position of farm workers and their families in rural areas. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) drew attention to the important difference between English and Scottish farm workers. The previous Labour Government introduced the Rent (Agriculture) Act, which gave English and Weish farm workers and their families security of tenure. That legislation put a specific obligation on housing authorities in England and Wales to provide alternative accommodation for ex-farm workers, where a case could be made that the farmer required the house for an incoming worker. It eliminated the legislative right of a farmer to get rid of a farm worker in a tied cottage on the grounds of agricultural need.
The only basis on which a farm worker can be asked to leave a tied cottage in England and Wales is that the local authority has provided suitable alternative housing. There is agreement that the Labour Party will implement that policy in Scotland, and I do not doubt that the next Labour Government will do just that. There is a strong case for the provision of council housing in England and Wales for farm workers who move to alternative employment, who are unable to work on the farm or who retire.
In England and Wales a farm worker can refuse to move from his tenanted cottage. That is not so in Scotland. In Scotland, a fanner can still evict a farm worker and his family on the basis of agricultural need. A farm worker is still dependent on the good will of his employer, a position which is intolerable. Pressure can be put on a farm worker in a tied agricultural cottage. The need for alternative council housing in Scotland is therefore much greater than in England and Wales. The Government's policy is outrageous and damaging.
I support the new clause. My hon. Friend will be the first to admit that it will not eliminate the dangers in the Bill for farm workers and their families. The only way to do that would be to eliminate council house sales in rural areas and to build more council houses in villages. However, diminishing the rate of loss of council houses in rural areas will at least help to mitigate the damage.
We should not forget that we are discussing workers who serve their country well and who, under successive Governments have been underpaid for decades. Their aspirations to move to a council house in a village or rural area, especially when they retire, will now be shattered. Some of these rural council houses are among the most desirable housing and are likely to be snapped up quickly. It is callous for Scottish Ministers to pursue this policy, which is more extreme than that in England and Wales, and more extreme than even that advocated by Right-wingers such as the Secretary of State for the Environment.
I hope that the Government will show some concern for the plight of the farm worker who is about to retire, who wants to move to alternative housing, or who simply wants no longer to live in a tied agricultural cottage.

Mr. George Robertson: The debate has been interesting and wide-ranging. It has not been joined by Conservative Members representing rural Scottish constituencies, who are not all tied up with the Finance Bill or the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill. Even if they were, provision could have been made for them.

Mr. Henderson: The reason is simple. We believe that the Government's concessions to rural areas are adequate to meet any problems that may exist. Many of the issues raised by Labour Members are not relevant to the real problems.

Mr. Robertson: In Committee, when the hon. Gentleman occasionally rose, ostensibly to support the Minister, he usually provided a diversion. It would have been preferable to have a response to the points raised in the debate instead of a glib expression of support for the Government.
Genuine concern has been expressed by district councils in Scotland about


how this feeble protection will work. It is only a short time since the election, when the Conservative Party managed, sometimes only narrowly, to regain certain rural constituencies from the nationalist foe. The Government are now blatantly ignoring the genuine concern expressed by locally elected representatives.
We have raised simple and practical points about the operation of this part of the Bill, but it is unlikely that we shall have much satisfaction from the Minister. We have heard nothing from Conservative Members who represent rural areas to suggest that they are satisfied with the Government's solutions.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) said, there is a clear and unequivocal manifesto commitment by the Conservatives to look after the interests of rural areas. The manifesto stated that
We shall therefore give council and new town tenants the legal right to buy their homes, while recognising the special circumstances of rural areas and sheltered housing for the elderly.
That commitment has been carried forward in the Housing Bill, now in another place. However feeble the protection, it has at least been afforded. Even that feeble solution brooks no comparison with that foisted on us in Committee a few weeks ago. Hon. Members have pointed out the serious defects in that proposed solution.
Why was the one-third figure chosen as the limit beyond which a crisis is to be assumed to have developed? By the time one-third of the houses have been sold the crisis clearly will have arrived. A council taking its case to St. Andrew's House will simply be locking the stable door after the horse has bolted. There has been no genuine defence of the one-third figure. It was plucked out of the air to give some credence to or technical justification for the Government's proposed solution.
The definition of a second home creates a real problem. The fail-safe device relates only to houses sold as second homes. It ignores the problem identied by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Home Roberston) and the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) of a growing influx of

commuters who could seriously affect the balance in rural communities. That will cause difficulties in the social mix and affect the genuine needs of local people for houses for rent.
A blanket solution is to be applied throughout Scotland, irrespective of the urban/rural mix in some district and island authorities. The practicalities have not been examined seriously. Amendment No. 9 would delete clause 4(7) and remove the absurd Government restrictions on applications that the island and district councils might make. Under the amendment the Secretary of State will be able to make a decision without the contraints in that part of the Bill. That will give flexibility to district councils which might be in a better position to judge whether a crisis has developed. It will give flexibility to the Secretary of State to judge whether a council's anxiety is valid. Clause 4(7) is full of holes, and will cause enormous problems to the Secretary of State and local councils. It would be a gesture to local democracy if the Government accepted the amendment
In opposition, the Conservative Party believes in local government and local decisions. How many times did we hear speeches from the Opposition Front Bench in the last Parliament on the Education Bill and after the Education Bill when members of the Tory Party proclaimed their faith in local democracy? They insisted that local communities should be able to decide, irrespective of national circumstances, on their own education systems. Now we are talking about the Government tightening controls on local authorities. Clause 4(7) is yet another illustration of the way in which the Government are trying to ham-string local authorities.
Our anxiety is not only about the resale of council houses for second homes, although, of course, that is a serious problem for a number of communities. The prospect of holiday homes becoming the rule rather than the exception in rural areas is causing widespread anxiety. Our concern is for the basic housing needs of people who live in rural communities. Government statistics contained in the document on housing in rural Scotland show that in the urban areas 58 per cent. of housing stock is in the public sector and that


in the rural areas only 38 per cent is provided by the public sector. People on low incomes who are starting out in life must turn to the public sector for their first homes. Any move that reduces such housing stock in rural areas is likely to exacerbate the problems.
6.15 pm
This is not a political debate, in spite of the silence from the Government Benches, the unanimity of view on the Opposition Benches and the apparent neglect of the rural areas by most Conservative Members. Local authorities have one voice. Almost all local authorities in the rural areas of Scotland have a genuine and deep anxiety about the sale of council houses. Even before the gains by the Labour Party in May, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, in its submission to hon. Members, stated :
Considerable concern has been expressed by authorities about the probable effects of a right to purchase our houses in rural areas.
The National Farmers Union, which is not within the orbit of a revolutionary movement, in one of its toughest statements, said of the English Housing Bill :
The potential of the Housing Bill's sale proposals to reduce the public rented stock in such areas over a relatively short period of time could, the Union considers, result in the exacerbation of already difficult circumstances.
The NFU sees serious problems, even with the feeble protection that the Secretary of State for the Environment has included in the English Housing Bill. How much more valid is that criticism in Scotland, where the protection is even more defective and feeble! Rural communities in Scotland have genuine worries about the impact of the Bill and its sale provisions. The Government are demonstrating irresponsible blindness to the problems.
Far from helping to solve the chronic housing shortage in many rural areas in Scotland the Bill will denude even further the rented housing stock. It shows the contempt of the Government for the genuine democratic voice of Scotland's local areas. The Government's range of amendments strengthen their proposals.

Mr. Rifkind: Mr. Rifkind I have listened carefully to the speeches that have been made. I

fully acknowledge the seriousness with which the topic is regarded. The Government do not seek to suggest that the sale of council houses in rural areas is not important. It is as important as the sale of council houses elsewhere. We see no reason to apologise for the proposition that it is right that council tenants who happen to live in rural areas should have the same basic statutory rights as council tenants in urban areas. I am glad to see that the Liberal Bench at least agrees with that proposition. It would be wrong if a new fundamental right that was being given to council tenants in Scotland—the right to buy their home—and presented as a general right for the people of Scotland, was available only to those who happened to live in urban areas. There would have been strong protests if rural areas had been exempted from a basic fundamental right that a tenants' rights Bill provides.

Opposition Members have indicated surprise that provisions contained in the Housing Bill for England and Wales do not exist in the Scottish Bill. There are many differences between the two Bills. Labour Members would have been the first to criticise if we had sought to follow slavishly a Bill for England and Wales and had not sought to take account of circumstances in Scotland. Second homes are a serious problem, at least in certain parts of England and Wales. That is not a proposition that can be put forward with any confidence today. Nor was any evidence produced in Committee on this matter. There has been reference to the report of the Dartington amenity research trust, which was published two or three years ago. There is no evidence to suggest that circumstances have changed materially since the report was published.

Mr. John Home Robertson: That report referred specifically to holiday homes rather than to second homes. There is a difference.

Mr. Rifkind: If there is a distinction, it is a distinction without a difference. The report looked at the whole question of second homes in Scotland.

Mr. Home Robertson: The hon. Gentleman should read it.

Mr. Rifkind: I have read it. It concludes that there has been no significant


increase over the years in the number of second homes in Scotland. Whatever distinction the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) wishes to make, any explosion in the number of holiday or second homes would come within the category of second homes and would be reflected in the statistics.
The inquiry and the report—the basic evidence available—indicated no significant increase over the last few years in the number of second homes in Scotland. It was pointed out that about 50 per cent. of the second homes that exist are not houses or cottages, but caravans or other forms of mobile accommodation. Even the global figures available are misleading in this debate.
The report pointed out that the overwhelming number of people who seek second homes or purchase them are not interested in modern council houses that exist in many rural areas in Scotland. They are concerned with the rundown cottage that can be bought relatively cheaply and perhaps improved with basic amenities to provide the limited requirements of a second home, a weekend cottage and an establishment that will be used for only a relatively short time. The last thing that the vast majority of people interested in holiday and second homes want is a block of council houses in a small village in rural areas. That was the evidence on which the Dartington amenity research trust—not a Government or a political body—reached its conclusions.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: What other studies have been carried out since the trust reported in 1977? Have the Government taken account of the drift of commuters out of the cities into rural areas surrounding cities? We are talking not about second homes but about the purchase of primary houses for occupation that may deprive local residents of the opportunity of living in the area where they were born and brought up.

Mr. Rifkind: When people move to an area, the mere fact that they commute to work should not exclude them from having the same rights as other local people in that area. Many of those who commute have always lived in the area but have started commuting because of the non-availability of work.
One of the most interesting conclusions of the research trust document was that 18 per cent. of second homes in Scotland are owned by council tenants. That is not a fact that one would have automatically guessed, but that was the conclusion reached as a result of the study. Some of the assumptions made about the ability of council tenants in Scotland to make provision for themselves should be considered in that light.
I agree that over half of the second homes in Scotland are caravans and mobile homes. The Government are entitled to take that fact into account when considering whether any specific legislative provision is required.
Comments, not particularly favourable, have been made by Opposition Members about the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. Lang) and accepted in Committee. It has been suggested that the amendment does not go far enough. The Opposition have also criticised the fact that the amendment will not apply immediately, but only if there seemed to be a significant problem. I make no apology. There is no evidence to suggest that there will be a significant problem, but the Government considered it reasonable to say that if, as matters develop, they were shown to be wrong, there should be provision in the legislation to respond to that need.
The right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) was wrong in his reading of the amendment that was agreed in Committee. He suggested in his amendment that to enable particularly secluded rural areas to be protected there would have to be the sale of one-third of the council houses in the area of the district council concerned. If he looks at the provision in the clause he will see that that is not the case. Clause 4 (6) states :
Subsection (4) above shall not apply to dwelling-houses in an area which is designated a rural area by the islands or district council within whose area it is situated 
There is no requirement that an area designated as a rural area has to cover the whole area of the district council. In the example that the right hon. Gentleman gave, it is unlikely that Galashiels could be considered part of a rural area, given the size of that small town. It will be at the discretion of a district or islands


council to designate what it believes to be a rural area. If one-third of the council houses are sold within that rural area and it is seen that a substantial proportion are ending up as second homes, the Secretary of State will be able to impose restrictions under this provision. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. It would have been unfair and unrealistic to expect one-third of the total council house stock in Ettrick, Lauderdale, or any other district, to be sold. That is not what the amendment said, nor is that what is contained in the Bill.

Mr. David Steel: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for correcting my impression on that point. Why does he tie his caveat to the going of these houses for holiday homes? I do not understand. In my example of four houses in my village, if two go, it means that two are left for the entire community, whether or not the other two have gone for holiday homes.

Mr. Rifkind: It is wrong to talk about two homes going as if they disappear and are not available for the local community. They would not be available to the local community if they were bought as second homes. That is why the amendment that was accepted deals with the problem. We are talking about houses that are sold to the sitting tenant. A person who has bought the house and is living in it, especially in a rural area, is unlikely to sell that house if there is no other house available in the same area. It is not like the situation in a city, where a person may sell a house and there are 1,001 other houses to purchase. Within a small community, unless the individual has chosen to leave that community and that rural area, which is rarer in those areas than it would be in a suburb, he will dispose of the house only if other accommodation is available.
The problem that was put by the local authorities and by others, although without any real evidence, was that of second homes and the belief that houses, once bought, would be sold to outsiders and would not be available. It was therefore right to have an amendment to deal with the matter. The right hon. Gentleman's amendment seeks to link the matter with housing plans. Housing plans and whether the objectives of a plan are endangered

are subjective matters. It would be possible for those who sought to frustrate the whole purpose of the Bill in rural areas to seek to use the housing plan, sometimes genuinely, but in other cases in a way that would not be acceptable.
Government amendment No. 68 is included in this group of amendments. If the Secretary of State uses his discretion under the clause, it is right that Parliament should have the opportunity to consider the matter. The amendment proposes that any order should be subject to the negative resolution procedure.
The Government were willing to accept that there are genuine fears, although no significant evidence has been presented in support of those fears. It is because we recognised the fears that we were prepared to accept the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway. If those fears are seen to be justified, not in the whole area of a district council, but in a particular rural area that it has designated, it will be possible to take preventive action. That seems to be a reasonable compromise. The objective evidence of the Dartington amenity research trust does not suggest that second homes or problems relating to them are of great significance in Scotland. We should acknowledge that.
I accept that Opposition Members have been expressing fears about what they believe may happen, but we have to act on the available evidence. The clause deals with the situation that will arise if the Government's view of the evidence turns out to be incorrect. That is a reasonable way to deal with the matter.

Mr. David Steel: Will the Under-Secretary deal with the point that I raised about retired people in tied cottages wishing to remain in the rural areas? They are not likely to be able to get mortgages and will be dependent on the availability of some rented housing stock in rural areas. Whether that stock goes for holiday homes, to local people or to outsiders, when it is reduced to a tiny proportion the local authority may be unable to meet the housing demands of retired people in tied cottages.

Mr. Rifkind: There is no question of selling houses on the open market.

Mr. Steel: What about afterwards?

Mr. Rifkind: Afterwards is a very long time. The evidence available is that the vast majority of those who have exercised their right to buy council houses are in their forties and early fifties, and not in their seventies or eighties, with only a few years to live in those homes. In both rural and urban areas, we are talking in the vast majority of cases of houses being sold to sitting tenants who have every intention of continuing to live in the house for many years, as do their spouses and children.
The right hon. Gentleman will know that, particularly in rural areas, when a tenant dies his wife has an automatic right to become a successor tenant, and often a son or daughter has a right thereafter. In many cases it is years after the original tenant has died before the house is, even in theory, available for those on the waiting list for council accommodation.

Mr. Strang: The hon. Gentleman has made great play of the fact that in the past those acquiring council houses have been in their forties or fifties. Does he not appreciate that one of the consequences of the substantial concessions in the Bill, which we believe will mean that viable public assets will be sold at knockdown prices, will be that young people will encourage their parents, and sometimes help them financially, to acquire their houses, with a view to making a financial killing in a few years' time?

Mr. Rifkind: I have heard that claim made before, but I have not seen any evidence in support of it. If anyone other than the tenant wishes to be a joint purchaser, the Bill provides that, whether in an urban or a rural area, he will have to have lived in the house for at least six months. The hon. Gentleman is making a speculative case on which no evidence was presented in Committee, and none has become available since then.

Mr. Cook: When I moved the new clause, I referred to the irony of the fact that protection for the rural areas was being provided by Labour Members when most of the areas, concerned are represented by Conservative Members.
It is extraordinary that we can have had a one and a half hour debate without one Conservative Member being prepared to make a speech from the Back

Benches on a night when the House is on a three-line Whip. There has not even been a Conservative Back Bench speech to defend the paltry amendment that Conservative Members pressed on their Front Bench in Committee.
We can only assume that the silence of hon. Members who are unwilling to come to the Chamber to defend the protection that they inserted into the Bill in Committee speaks volumes for their embarrassment about the meagre, mugatory nature of the protection provided for the rural areas.
In default of any support from his colleagues, the Minister made a brave attempt at defending an untenable position. I repeat the question that I asked at the outset. Has a single district council in a rural area withdrawn its reservations about the Bill since the amendment was carried in Committee? Has a single council in a rural area heaved a sigh of relief and said "At last we are protected. We need not worry."? Of course, none has. The overwhelming preponderance of councils in rural areas remain as anxious about the effect of the Bill on them as they were before the amendment was carried.
The Under-Secretary made great play of the second home argument and referred to the Dartington amenity research trust report. I remind him that although the trust said that it believed that the demand for second homes had stabilised over recent years, it added a rider.

Mr. William Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you to appeal to hon. Members who are beyond the Bar, and therefore beyond your control, to go outside if they wish to talk while the debate is going on. That would enable hon. Members to hear what is being said.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): I could hear quite well what the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) was saying.

Mr. Hamilton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is not a joke. I am in the Chamber to listen to the debate. If other hon. Members are not prepared to listen they should get out.

Mr. Cook: I see from the annunciators that I ought to be in the Finance Bill


Committee, but we shall have to concede that the Government are about to win a Division in that Committee.
I am grateful for your assurance that you can hear me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That encourages me to go back to the point that I was making. The Dartington report said that the demand for second homes in Scotland had stabilised, but it added the rider that if economic growth were resumed it would expect that the demand for second homes would grow again. I presume that we can discount the pcsibility of economic growth under the present Government. The Minister clearly does not expect that there will be a resumed demand for second homes.
I must tell the hon. Gentleman that there is nothing surprising about the fact that 18 per cent. of second homes in Scotland are owned by council tenants. They make up 55 per cent. of the population in Scotland and if there is anything striking about the statistics, it is the difference between the two figures.
The essential point about the debate is that, when the Government constantly emphasise that there is not a substantial threat from second homes they demolish the amendment, carried in Committee, that is supposed to provide protection for rural areas, because that protection will come into play only if there is a material threat from second homes. If the demand for second homes does not materialise, there is no protection under the amendment carried in Committee.

Mr. Rifkind: Mr. Rifkind indicated assent.

Mr. Cook: I am glad that the Under-Secretary agrees. He is confirming that the alleged protection is a dead letter. It will do nothing to protect the special circumstances of rural areas, which the Conservative Party said in its manifesto that it would protect. Having heard the

Minister's reply, I am moved to wonder what the Tory Party thought were the special circumstances of rural areas when it put that commitment in its manifesto. It seems from the Minister's reply that there are no special circumstances. Under the Bill, rural areas are to be treated in the same way as urban areas.

There are special circumstances. Already, there are fewer houses available for letting in rural areas than there are in the cities. The Minister says that when the houses are sold they will not disappear and he argues that they will remain with the same family for two or three decades. I am again struck by the contrast between the Government's argument that we must sell council houses in order to encourage mobility and their fixed faith that the person who buys a council house will stay rooted to the spot for 20 or 30 years.

In regard to the Under-Secretary's reply to the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel), however long "afterwards" may be, the fact remains that in future access to these houses will be by purchase rather than by renting. Those young families who are unable to purchase houses in rural areas will have their choice substantially reduced by the effect of this Bill which fails to provide any protection to rural areas.

There are indeed special circumstances in the rural areas. They are recognised by virtually every council representative in the Scottish rural areas who has pressed for protection. I believe that those special circumstances should be recognised by the House and I urge the House to support the new clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time :—

The House divided : Ayes 219. Noes 262.

Division No. 350]
AYES
[6.40 pm


Abse, Leo
Beith, A. J
Cant, R. B.


Adams, Allen
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Allaun, Frank
Bidwell, Sydney
Cartwright, John


Alton, David
Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Clark, Or David (South Shields)


Anderson, Donald
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Bradley, Tom
Cohen, Stanley


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest
Bray, Dr Jeremy
Coleman, Donald


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.


Ashton, Joe
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)
Conian, Bernard


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Buchan, Norman
Cook, Robin F.


Bagler, Gordon A. T.
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)
Cowans, Harry


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Campbell, Ian
Cox, Tom (Wandsworth, Tooting)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Campbell-Savours, Dale
Crowther, J. S.




Cryer, Bob
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Janner, Hon Greville
Robertson, Georg


Cunningham, George (lslington S)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Robinson, Petar (Belfast East)


Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)
John, Brynmor
Rodgers, Rt Hon Wllliam


Dalyell, Tam
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Rooker, J. W.


Davidson, Arthur
Johnson, Walter (Derby South)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)
Rowlands, Ted


Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Ryman, John


Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Sandelson, Neville


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Sever, John


Dewar, Donald
Kerr, Russell
Sheerman, Barry


Dixon, Donald
Kilroy-Sllk, Robert
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)


Dobson, Frank
Lamble, David
Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)


Dormand, Jack
Lamborn, Harry
Short, Mrs Renée


Douglas, Dick
Lamond, James
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Douglas-Man", Bruce
Leadbitter, Ted
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwlch)


Dubs, Alfred
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)
Silverman, Julius


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Skinner, Dennis


Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)


Dunnett, Jack
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Snape, Peter


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)
Soley, Clive


Eastham, Ken
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Spearing, Nigel


Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)
McCartney, Hugh
Sprlggs, Leslie


English, Michael
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Steel, Rt Hon David


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)


Evans, John (Newton)
McKelvey, William
Stott, Roger


Ewing, Harry
Maclennan, Robert
Strang, Gavin


Field, Frank
Magee, Bryan
Straw, Jack


Fitch, Alan
Marks, Kenneth
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Flannery, Martin
Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Maxton, John
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East)


Forrester, John
Maynard, Miss Joan
Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)


Foster, Derek
Meacher, Michael
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Foulkea, George
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Tilley, John


Fraser, John (Lambeth. Norwood)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Torney, Tom


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


George, Bruce
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, ltchen)
Watkins, David


Ginsburg, David
Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)
Weetch, Ken


Graham, Ted
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Wellbeloved, James


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Weish, Michael


Grant, John (Islington C)
Newens, Stanley
White, Frank R. (Bury & Radcliffe)


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
O'Halloran, Michael
Whitehead, Phillip


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
O'Neill, Martin
Whitlock, William


Hardy, Peter
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wigley, Dafydd


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Palmer, Arthur
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Haynes, Frank
Park, George
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Parker, John
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)
Pavitt, Laurie
Winnick, David


Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhalt)
Pendry, Tom
Woodall, Alec


Home Robertson, John
Penhaligon, David
Woolmer, Kenneth


Homewood, William
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Hooley, Frank
Prescott, John
Young, David (Bolton East)


Horam, John
Radice, Giles



Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm N)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES :


Howells, Geraint
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Mr. James Tinn and


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)
Mr. George Morion.


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)






NOES


Adley, Robert
Boscawen, Hon Robert
Cadbury, Jocelyn


Aitken, Jonathan
Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Carlisle, John (Luton West)


Alexander, Richard
Bowden, Andrew
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Arnold, Tom
Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)


Aspinwall, Jack
Braine, Sir Bernard
Chalker, Mrs. Lynda


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Bright, Graham
Channon, Paul


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Brinton, Tim
Chapman, Sydney


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Brittan, Leon
Churchill, W. S.


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)


Banks, Robert
Brooke, Hon Peter
Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)


Bell, Sir Ronald
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Bendall, Vivian
Browne, John (Winchester)
Colvin, Michael


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Bruce-Gardyna, John
Cormack, Patrick


Beat, Keith
Bryan, Sir Paul
Corrie, John


Bevan, David Gilroy
Buck, Antony
Costain, A. P.


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Budgen, Nick
Cranborne, Viscount


Biggs-Davison, John
Bulmer, Esmond
Critchley, Julian


Blackburn, John
Burden, F. A.
Dean, Paul (North Somerset)


Body, Richard
Butcher, John
Dickens, Geoffrey


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Butler, Hon Adam
Dorrell, Stephen







Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Dover, Denshore
Latham, Michael
Renton, Tim


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Lawrence, Ivan
Rhodes James, Robert


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Lawson, Nigel
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Lee, John
Ridsdale, Julian


Edward", Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Rifkind, Malcolm


Eggar, Timothy
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Emery, Peter
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Falrbairn, Nicholas
Loveridge, John
Rossi, Hugh


Fairgrleve, Russell
Lyell, Nicholas
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Faith, Mrs Sheila
McCrindie, Robert
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman


Farr, John
Macfarlane, Neil
Scott, Nicholas


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
MacGregor, John
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
MacKay, John (Argyll)
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hllls)


Fookes, Miss Janet
McQuarrie, Albert
Silvester, Fred


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Madel, David
Sims, Roger


Fox, Marcus
Major, John
Skeet, T. H. H.


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)
Marland, Paul
Smith, Dudley (War. and Leam'ton)


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Marlow, Tony
Speller, Tony


Fry, Peter
Marten, Neil (Banbury)
Spence, John


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mates, Michael
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mather, Carol
Stanley, John


Goodhew, Victor
Maude, Rt Hon Angus
Steen, Anthony


Gow, lan
Mawby, Ray
Stevens, Martin


Gower, Sir Raymond
Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stewart, lan (Hitchin)


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)


Gray, Hamish
Mayhew, Patrick
Stokes, John


Greenway, Harry
Mellor, David
Stradling Thomas, J.


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Tapsell, Peter


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)
Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)


Grist, lan
Mills, lain (Meriden)
Tebbit, Norman


Grylls, Michael
Miscampbeil, Norman
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret


Gummer, John Selwyn
Moate", Roger
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&Ew'll)
Monro, Hector
Thompson, Donald


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Montgomery, Fergus
Thornton, Malcolm


Hampson, Dr Keith
Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)


Hannam, John
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)
Trippier, David


Haselhurst, Alan
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Trotter, Neville


Hastings, Stephen
Mudd, David
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Murphy, Christopher
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Hawkins, Paul
Myles, David
Viggers, Peter


Hayhoe, Barney
Neale, Gerrard
Waddington, David


Heddle, John
Needham, Richard
Wakeham, John


Henderson, Barry
Nelson, Anthony
Waldegrave, Hon William


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Neubert, Michael
Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Newton, Tony
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Nott, Rt Hon John
Waller, Gary


Hooson, Tom
Onslow, Cranley
Walters, Dennis


Hordern, Peter
Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham
Ward, John


Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Parris, Matthew
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage)


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Wheeler, John


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Patten, John (Oxford)
Whitney, Raymond


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Pattie, Geoffrey
Wickenden, Keith


Jenkln, Rt Hon Patrick
Pawsey, James
Wiggin, Jerry


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Pink, R. Bonner
Wilkinson, John


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Pollock, Alexander
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Porter, George
Winterton, Nicholas


Kershaw, Anthony
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Wolfson, Mark


Kimball, Marcus
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Prior, Rt Hon James
Younger, Rt Hon George


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Proctor, K. Harvey



Knight, Mrs Jill
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
TELLERS FOR THE NOES :


Knox, David
Raison, Timothy
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Lamont, Norman
Rathbone, Tim
Mr. Anthony Berry.


Lang, lan
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 17

REPEAL OF PROVISIONS OF RENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1971

'In the Rent (Scotland) Act 1971, section 2(1)(bbb), and section 85(4) shall cease to have effect.'.—[Air. Maxton.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. John Maxton: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
First, may I apologise to the House for walking into the Chamber and moving the clause without having been present for the earlier part of the debate. The Minister will be aware that I have been debating another Scottish Bill in Committee for the past two and a half hours.
The purpose of the clause is to repeal two sections of the Rent (Scotland) Act 1971. The two sections deal with absolving from the regulated rent sector and controlled rents houses that are let for holiday purposes.
In 1971, and again in 1974 when there was amending legislation, it seemed the correct procedure that someone in a holiday resort, or in an area in the country or by the seaside that others like to visit when on holiday, who let his house for holiday purposes should not have holiday-makers claiming residence and arguing that they were tenants in the normal sense of the word.
Unscrupulous landlords have used the absolving provisions for their own devious purposes. There are certain landlords in Glasgow and Edinburgh—I accept that there are not very many of them—who let their houses or flats on what may turn out to be a holiday let when it is no such thing. These houses or flats are often let to students who want to rent for a full year. They are let on a holiday basis, which absolves the landlord from the controls to which he would have been subject if he had let under other terms and removes the protection that the person paying the rent would otherwise have.
That is unscrupulous and vicious. It often leads to the tenant suffering a great deal of harm that should not befall him.
There are other abuses, including the rent and board arrangement. There are landlords in Glasgow who offer bed and breakfast facilities when the breakfast can be taken only three miles away in another block of flats. There is an hour's hike in the morning to get breakfast if the tenant wishes to take advantage of the arrangement. The fact that breakfast is available in the terms of the lease gets the landlord round the Rent Acts and allows him to have tenants who are essentially unprotected by the Rent Acts and other legislation.
The Minister may argue that if we remove the two sections from the Rent (Scotland) Act 1971 the person who genuinely offers his house for holiday lets will have no protection. In my view, and in that of my hon. Friends, that is not so. Holiday lets have always been excluded from the Rent Acts. Judicial decisions have consistently accepted that

exclusion. Therefore, the person who is genuinely letting his house for a holiday will not be affected by the clause.
The clause will get rid of landlords who abuse every piece of housing legislation for their own pecuniary benefit and for profit and profit only, and who exploit their tenants in whatever way they can. It will be those landlords whom the clause will hit, and not those who genuinely let their house to holidaymakers.

Mr. Rifkind: I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) said. I acknowledge that there have been one or two instances where unscrupulous landlords have abused the existing provisions in the manner that the hon. Gentleman has indicated. There is no evidence that the abuse to which he has referred is at all widespread.
The basic problem with the hon. Gentleman's clause is that if it were accepted by the House it would dry up completely the supply of holiday homes. That is because the protection that is presently provided for a person offering his holiday home for rent would no longer be available.
I cannot accept the suggestion on which the hon. Gentleman did not expand and for which he provided no evidence-namely, that the removal of the protection would make no difference to the genuine holiday home. The two sections at which the clause is aimed protect the person who is genuinely seeking to provide a holiday home and nothing more. If we remove that protection, we are losing the beneficial consequences as well as the harmful ones which the hon. Gentleman has described.
There is a remedy available to a tenant on whom a landlord is seeking to apply an order of eviction on the ground of a spurious holiday let. Under section 122 of the Rent (Scotland) Act 1971, it is open to either the landlord or the tenant to apply to the court for a determination of whether the tenancy comes within the appropriate part of the Act. If, notwithstanding the formal words that have been used, the tenant disputes the reality of the let when the landlord seeks to evict him, and if, despite the words that may have been used in the original agreement, it is obvious to the court that what was arranged was not intended to be a holiday


let, the court already has power under the Act to take action.
There is a good prospect that with the short tenancies provided elsewhere in the Bill there will be no need for a landlord to abuse the existing provisions as he has described. It will be possible for the first time for persons considering making property available to specify a period that is acceptable to both parties.
There is provision for a tenant who believes that his rights are being abused by his landlord to use section 122 of the 1971 Act to allow the court to investigate the matter. The courts are used to looking behind the formal words used and to the reality of a situation. Therefore, this power exists in theory and could be used by a tenant who might otherwise suffer as a consequence of abuse by the landlord in question.

7 pm

Mr. George Robertson: I had not intended to take part in this short debate—indeed, dialogue—until I heard the Minister explaining that this abuse might become a precedent or a past circumstance the moment the short tenancies came in. There might be some validity in what the Minister said. One might agree with him. Later we shall come to the subject of the short tenancies.
What the Minister said fulfilled some of the prophecies made by the Opposition in Committee, that short tenancies would start to be the norm. The Government are about to institutionalise the loopholes and abuses that are possible under the existing law. By making this new form of tenure the commonest form, the prospect of insecurity for all tenants—never mind the small, persecuted minority who are already on holiday lets—will be a reality, and not simply an hypothesis.
I hope, even in this short debate, that Government supporters, who poured scorn on our words, will listen carefully to the Minister. The fact is that he has now put clothes on the skeleton of the worries that existed in the minds of the Opposition when we debated the matter in Committee.

Mr. Maxton: My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) dealt adequately with a point that I should have raised.
The Minister referred to the legal recourse there already is under section 122 of the 1971 Act. That may well be true. I accept his word. However, we are all aware that for many people—especially students, the young and inexperienced—recourse to the law is not an easy process. They find it difficult. Therefore, they tend to be exploited simply because they are not capable of handling the legal procedures.
The second major point was that there would be a drying up of holiday lets. I should be very much against that as I let a house in the summer months for my holiday—and a genuine holiday let it is. [HON. MEMBERS : "Which way?"] I rent the house. I took a holiday let. Let me be quite clear on that. I rent a house for the summer. I should not like to see that source drying up, as I should not be able to take my holiday.
At the same time, I am still concerned that abuse will take place—and is taking place. I should like time in which to consider what the Minister said and see whether perhaps there is some other manner in which this loophole can be closed against landlords who exploit tenants in this way. Therefore, I am happy to seek to withdraw the clause at this point. I shall perhaps ask my noble Friends in another place to consider whether another recourse is open to us.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 19

AMENDMENT TO SECTION 1(6) OF THE HOUSING (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) ACT 1978.

' In section 1(6) of the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1978 after the word "considerations", there shall be inserted the words "including the estimates used in subsection (3)(b) above".'.—[Mr. George Robertson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. George Robertson: I beg to move. That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take new clause 27—Amendment of Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1978.

Mr. Robertson: This is an amendment to section 1(6) of the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1978.
New clauses 19 and 27 have virtually the same effect. One is a slight refinement of the other. Their intention is to add to the provisions that already exist within the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1978 in relation to the determination of the housing support grant. Each year it is now incumbent upon the Secretary of State for Scotland to bring before the House an order relating to the housing support grant for the following year. It is incumbent upon him to do so under the legislation that we are discussing.
It might be said that for the average person, whether inside or outside the House, the degree of explanation that the explanatory memorandum gives is open to debate. However, according to the memorandum, it is the responsibility of the Government to bring forward such information along with the order itself.
The order provides for the financing of local government expenditure on housing programmes for the following year. The intention of our new clause is to substantiate the already existing provisions so that the Government estimates—which they must use as part and parcel of determining the housing support grant—will also be included in the explanatory memorandum.
Of course there is a reason for bringing forward this new clause at this time. Needless to say, it relates to the housing support grant order for 1980. Although in previous years when the housing support grant order came before the House, the Government adhered to the spirit of the 1978 legislation, and ensured that the Government's role in determining the level of financial provision for local authorities was such as to secure that the level of rents did not rise higher than the level of earnings in Scotland, a major and serious exception to that rule occurred this year.
It is the strong feeling of the Opposition that the Government should be obliged to show the estimates that they have made of earnings, prices, interest rates and the rate increases that may be necessary if the so-called figures put forward

by the Government are taken in isolation.
This year, the Government's figures, which were before the House without the benefit of the estimates on which they were made, would, if they had been imposed by every local authority in Scotland, have led to a 37 per cent. increase in the level of council house rents. That would have been the effect of the Government's imposed increase. The figure that they gave the House was lower than that. The figure of £1·40 was given by the Minister at the press conference and in the debate. However, my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craig-ton (Mr. Millan), in a letter to the Secretary of State only a few days later, showed that the basic arithmetic adopted by the Government was erroneous and that the real increase that would be necessary, without an increase in rates to cover the cutback in the housing support grant, would have led to an actual increase in council house rents of no less than 37 per cent.
The historical precedent of council house rents in this country is on record. The Government produced in Committee, when the Bill was discussed, figures of increases in rents, prices and earnings over a number of years. The figure for the years between 1974 and 1979, during the period of the previous Labour Government, showed that earnings rose in that period by 15·9 per cent. and that rent increases were 13·2 per cent. Those figures were produced by the Government to illustrate another feature of their own arithmetical shenanigans.
The previous Government made that a point of principle. It was established in Committee on the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill that there should be a link between the increase that working people, council house tenants, should be expected to bear in council house rent increases and the level of increases in earnings. This year, unless the Government were estimating an increase in earnings during the future year of 37 per cent., they broke that spirit and understanding. They quite clearly injected into the system a massive amount of inflationary pressure. A 37 per cent. increase in rents during a year when the figure for an out turn on wages was 18 per cent. and that for inflation was 17 per


cent, is, perhaps, allowing the shadow to become the substance.
If the Government are heading for an inflation rate of 37 per cent. and see average earnings rising to that level, there is nothing wrong with the formula as it stands, but people are not likely to be conned by that sort of statistical exercise.
It is necessary for people in Scotland, especially those in council houses, to know how the Government are determining the financial provisions for local authorities. Local authorities should not have to do the Government's dirty work for them. If provision is being made for local authorities in the coming year, the Government should be obliged to publish the detailed estimates that they clearly must have before coming to the House with the housing support grant order.
There is no doubt in our minds that council house tenants and people in the private mortgage sector are bearing the brunt of the Government's obsession with monetarism. The Government should at least publish the inconsistency between the estimates that they have made on inflation, pay, prices, rates increases and interest rates and the figures that they have calculated for in the housing support grant to determine the level of council house rent increases.
We are not making an unreasonable request. The new clause would provide a strengthening of the democratic accountability of the Government. I hope that for the future of the housing programme and its explanation the Government will see fit to accept the new clause.

Mr. Robert Hughes: It is important for many reasons that the Government should accept the new clause and publish the estimates on which they are proposing to calculate the housing support grant.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) mentioned what would happen to interest rates and the influence that that will have over the Government's calculations on local authority rents. Many tenants resent a kind of mechanistic approach to rent levels. Irrespective of the kind of service provided, the rent automatically seems to go up because of conditions outwith their control.
The Government should give an estimate of the money to be channelled into the rehabilitation or upgrading of older houses. We should know about this, factor when the Government are pre-paring their estimates and giving us some ideas.
It is probably a truism that one of the major influences on the quality of life is people's housing. None the less, it is valid to say that. The kind of house one lives in can affect one's health, the educaition of one's children and one's marital stability. No one can be in any doubt that greatly improved housing conditions, as a result of massive new house building, by local authorities has meant a great deal to the quality of people's lives.
The quality of life of many people in our cities and country areas will be severely curtailed and impaired by the slowing up of new house building. Notwithstanding that, even if local authority new house building were to proceed at the kind of pace that I wish to see, there is a strong need to upgrade houses which were built some years ago. Building standards since the war have not taken into account when the first local authority houses were built. Standards of building, of accommodation and even of people's aspirations have consistently increased year by year. Compared with 30 or 40 years ago, there have been tremendous advances. But as the years pass there is an urgent need to provide for the aspirations of tenants in older houses. There are substantial practical reasons why we should go in for a great deal of house improvement in the local authority sector.
People may wish for many reasons to be mobile within the public authority housing sector. They may wish to change from the area in which they live. A family may wish to move because the breadwinner has changed his job. People may want to move to be near elderly parents who require some degree of care ard attention, but not so much that they have to go into hospital.
7.15 pm
These of us who deal with housing problems from day to day in our constituencies know that it is difficult to effect transfers and exchanges. Pressure on housing is growing and there will be a greater need for mobility. I do not


make any criticism of local authorities generally regarding their exchange or transfer policies, but I think that more needs to be done to effect changes and transfers.
Many tenants live in sub-standard accommodation. A great amount of the accommodation built many years ago by local authorities can now be classed as sub-standard. It may not be strictly technically sub-standard in relation to grants and so forth, but I think that it can be classed as sub-standard. People in such accommodation suffer in two ways. First, they have to live in houses which have many defects. Secondly, because of those defects, their mobility is very much impaired.
If I was not aware of this problem before—I would claim that I was—the issue was sharply brought to my attention two weeks ago by a deputation of tenants from an area in my constituency known as South Middlefield. That deputation represented an organisation called the South Middlefield action group. Those tenants were incensed that year by year their rents were being put up because of Government pressure on the money being made available to the local authorities. Rents are being forced ever upwards and improvements are not being carried out on their houses. They are incensed because the programmes are being pushed even further back.
The number of houses involved is 424. Some of those houses were built in 1939 and others were built in 1947. I am speaking of houses which are between 33 and 41 years old. The tenants are angry because the programme for rehabilitating their houses has been pushed back. They will not now be improved for a further period of three to four years. The reason for the postponement is the reduction in the housing support grant.
I had the difficult task of trying to explain how the housing support grant was calculated. I had to say that I did not know how it was calculated because I had no idea what estimates the Government had made in arriving at their calculations. In those circumstances it is impossible to explain rationally, even if one agrees or disagrees with the policy, the estimates on which the Government base their calculations.
Some people may think that in terms of renovating or upgrading, one is concerned with simple cosmetic matters. That is not so. The South Middlefield action group surveyed 129 houses to ascertain their state of repair. They found that 94 houses—72 per cent.—suffered from dampness and our age-old friend, condensation. Of the tenants living in those houses, 43—or 45 per cent.—felt that the conditions of those houses were affecting their health. There were also complaints about excessive fuel costs, the poor state of repairs and things had not been done. They were told by the local authority that essential repairs, such as repairs to electrical wiring, had been postponed because their houses would be completely renovated and upgraded, and that it would hold until then and do the whole job at once.
I do not have time to discuss all the relevant factors that affect people in that area, but it is not surprising that 82 per cent. of tenants are not satisfied with the condition of their houses, and that 83 per cent. do not think that their rents are fair, and that they are not getting value for money.
I do not complain about the action of the district housing authority which has ha to postpone its programmes. Given the priorities that it has to face, it is an understandable action. It is in great difficulties in discharging its duty to tenants. The responsibility for the deteriorating standards, and the delays in arresting that deterioration, rests with the Government, who control the rate of progress through the housing support grant. Locai authorities are in some difficulty because they do not know, with any degree of clarity, the make-up of the housing support grant, how much extra money they are receiving for home improvements, and the Government's calculations.
I know that the housing support grant is not subject to the same rigid cash limits as other sectors. Nevertheless, the Government cannot control the finance available, fail to control and take into account interest rates, fail to take more than an accountant's approach to the question of housing, and then expect district housing authorities to respond to tenants needs.
How will local authorities be able to come to the Government at the end of


the day, when they are faced with the reality of the outrun of their housing accounts, to argue that they need more money, if they do not know the basis upon which the calculations are made? How can hon. Members protect the interests of local authority tenants, and argue a case with the Government for a greater amount of money to be made available at the end of the year to a local authority that has overspent, if they do not know the basis of the calculations? I do not think that anyone in the Government had any idea, when they took office, that within a short space of time interest rates would rocket to an all-time high, and would remain at that level for such a lengthy period. Anyone with even a modicum of knowledge of housing policy knows the effect of high interest rates on the budgets of local authorities. The way in which the system operates is that as long as there are high interest rates there will be pressure for increased rents for tenants.
I hope that the Government will accept the amendment. It is necessary for better democracy and the better handling by district housing authorities of the various priorities that they have to choose to meet the tenants' needs, and it will be of practical help to the authorities. Above all, it will enable those tenants who feel that they are not getting a square deal in return for the rent that they pay to receive some consideration and improvement of housing conditions that are not good enough in the prescent day and age.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I am not sure whether it is wise for me to speak before my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie). It may remind him and some other colleagues that he was always having a go at me, even when the order was put through. I hope that I can persuade him to direct his attack at the proper quarter, namely, the Minister. In the context of the new policies that the Government are pursuing, we are entitled to ask what effect the policy of selling council houses will have on the calculations. That is the purpose that lies behind the two new clauses. They relate to section 1 of the 1978 Act.
As the House and the Minister know, we are talking in terms of two parts of an

equation—eligible expenditure and relevant income. I confess that I shall be interested to hear the Minister's remarks when he replies. I could write his reply, because I know that the stock answer will be "We cannot say. We are talking about an aggregate income. The local authority must determine how much will be included in rent increases and how much in rate increases". I am sure that that standby will be included in the brief. It is used when a Minister does not wish to make any commitment. I accept that, because I have used it regularly.
The Minister must hazard a guess, on the basis of the figures within the financial memorandum to the Bill, about the effect of the provisions—both in the short term and in the longer term—on the income and expenditure prospects of the authorities concerned. We are of the opinion that in the short term selling council houses could be a bonus for local authorities—but not in the long term.
The Minister and the Department must have made some calculation about the effect of the policy in, for example, three years. All sorts of permutations were made and a document was issued relating to the Bill for England and Wales, but it did not add up to very much. I am concerned about the effect that the provisions will have, in a few years' time on the increase in rents. There will not be increases in rents or in the local contribution, in line with earnings, as we argued we would expect. I am satisfied that the calculations are no longer valid in the light of the additional costs that fall on the housing authorities as a result of the policies being pursued by the Government.
The new clauses are relevant in the new circumstances. They are an extension of the basic principle, on which we are all agreed, that the maximum amount of information should be made available. I see no reason why they should not be accepted in one form or another.

Mr. David Lambie: I rise to support the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), which demands that the Government should provide more information to all groups, including councillors and Members of Parliament, about the calculations upon which the order is based. I am one of


the few Members of Parliament who have consistently voted against rate support grant orders and housing support grant orders, irrespective of the Government in office at the time. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) said that he hoped that I would not criticise the previous Labour Administration but would direct my attack at the present Government. I suggest that there is some criticism to be made. I hope that we will learn from the mistakes made by the previous Labour Administration.
When we discussed the housing support grant during the previous Labour Administration, we said that we were providing a Trojan horse for a future Conservative Government. My right hon. and hon. Friends said that we should not worry while there was a Labour Government in power and a Labour Secretary of State at the Scottish Office. I was able to accept that. But we have now reached the stage where we have in power the most reactionary Conservative Government ever, and a Tory Secretary of State for Scotland at the Scottish Office. We assumed that the next Secretary of State for Scotland would be the then hon. Member for Glasgow, Cath-cart, who is now the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor). I can remember making many speeches about the dire consequences which would result for Scottish tenants once that diehard Tory had control of the Scottish Office as well as control of Scottish tenants and their rents.

Mr. Robert Hughes: My hon. Friend made such effective speeches that the then hon. Member for Glasgow, Cath-cart lost his seat.

Mr. Lambie: That may be so. I do not think that there was a transfer fee, but the hon. Gentleman has transferred to the South of England.

Mr. Hughes: The Secretary of State paid the transfer fee.

Mr. Lambie: Although we were afraid of the personality and policies of the hon. Member for Southend, East, we still have a Secretary of State for Scotland who is one of the old nobility and, therefore, a decent type of Tory.

Mr. Hughes: There is no such thing.

Mr. Lambie: In spite of that, the right hon. Gentleman has been given a framework that allows him to carry out the Government's policy and to attack council tenants in Scotland, and he is doing so. Irrespective of whether the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) or the hon. Member for Southend, East is in control, the Secretary of State has been given a framework by the previous Labour Government that allows him to attack council tenants.
During the period of the Conservative Government from 1970–1974, there were many debates in Committee and elsewhere on the Rent Act. We argued the case that the Tory Government were completely changing the system of local government finance and were reneging on commitments that successive Governments had made to local councils since 1919. They reneged on agreements which had been signed for 40 years or 60 years, depending on the Housing Act which one takes. At that stage they began to change the whole concept of local authority housing finance.
When the Labour Government came into power they added to that by introducing the concept of the housing support grant. Certainly, the Labour Government did not apply it in the way in which the present Government have applied it and will apply it in the future, but they provided the framework that the Tory Government can now use to attack the standards of council tenants in Scotland. Irrespective of which Government have been in power, we find that housing policies have been similar. They may differ in emphasis and attack, but the theory behind them is the same.
In my opinion, civil servants in the Scottish Office and the Treasury have had more say in housing policy since 1970 than politicians and Members of Parliament like myself. In spite of the fact that between 65 per cent. and 70 per cent. of Scottish people live in public sector housing or tenanted property, very few representatives of the tenants are here tonight—not only from the Conservative and Labour Benches but from civil servants.
Since 1970 an attack on council housing has been carried out by people who are owner-occupiers and who have the philosophy of owner-occupiers. That


philosophy is that they are subsidising council tenants and that it is not right to make them subsidise council tenants. There has been a gradual attack on the right to be a tenant, which is the traditional right of the Scot. We have gradually reached the stage at which people in Scotland—it has been the case in England and Wales for a number of years—are ashamed to say that they are tenants because they feel that they are being subsidised by the owner-occupier. We are now seeing the final attack on tenants in Scotland by the actions of the Government.
Irrespective of cuts in Government expenditure, the owner-occupier maintains his privileged place with regard to taxation. No Tory Government would ever dare to reintroduce schedule D tax but schedule D tax should be reintroduced, because the owner-occupier, by having his money in bricks and mortar, is escaping inflation. People who bought houses two or three years ago for £15,000 or £16,000 now find that the value of those houses is £30,000, £40,000 or £50,000. There has been an increase in the value of their property, yet they pay no income tax on that increase. That means that they are in a privileged position simply because the majority of hon. Members and the whole of the Civil Service are owner-occupiers.
I hope that as a result of the new clause we shall receive more information from the Government on how they estimate the final figures for housing support grant. I hope that the new clause will represent a start by Labour Members towards the defence of the council tenant and his rights.
In the past, I have tried to obtain the information that the new clause seeks. I have asked successive Secretaries of State to provide me with the information on which both the rate support grant and housing support grant settlements are made. I have never been able to obtain that information. In fact, a few months ago I asked the Scottish Office for this year's final rate support grant settlement for the two district councils in my area—the rate support grant settlement on which the rates in May were based. I am still waiting for information about how much money Cunninghame district council and

Kyle and Carrick district council have received in rate support grant settlements. The rates were fixed on the basis that the councils would receive a certain amount of money. When one asks the Secretary of State to provide that information, he says "I cannot do it until I get the facts". But in order to get the facts he fixes a figure. I suggest that the reason why successive Governments have been unwilling to give information to Members of Parliament or local authorities is that there is no formula for arriving at the rate support grant or housing support grant settlements.
The Minster can deny it if he likes, but in my opinion the Government decide during the year, before the negotiations begin, how much money they will allocate. After doing so, they devise a formula to ensure that they achieve that result. I believe that that is what happens. Over a period of months I have asked the Minister to tell me what the local authorities in my area are receiving in rate support grant and he still has not given an answer. Yet rates were fixed by the two district councils in May, on the basis that they would receive a certain amount of money from the rate support grant and housing support grant.
There is a lot of kidology in local government finance. In fact, I think that we could cut the number of people working in New St. Andrew's House if we came clean in respect of these negotiations, because many of the jobs involve working out a formula in order to arrive at the result that the Government want.
This year, I asked the Secretary of State for Scotland to involve Members of Parliament in the rate support grant and the housing support grant settlement. We should be involved in those negotiations. At present, the Government, or the various working parties of civil servants, meet representatives of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities—COSLA—and discuss Scottish issues. When the councillors are asked what they have been discussing, they do not know, and whenever Ministers are asked what they have been discussing, they do not know. But someone knows, because they achieve results. I asked the Secretary of State for Scotland to involve Members of Parliament when meetings take place with COSLA. I did so on the basis that I was the hon. Member, along with the


other 634 hon. Members, who finally decided and voted on both the rate support grant and the housing support grant settlements. Unless we knew how those figures were arrived at we would have been voting in the dark, after a short debate lasting only one and a half hours, which sometimes took place during the early hours of the morning.
That is why I support the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton as a step forward. I hope that once we are in power—the Labour Party will be in power again—we shall be able to look after our friends and supporters who are still council house tenants in Scotland, and that we shall not listen to civil servants and put forward their policies in order to solve the problem of housing finance. We shall act as politicians, and as politicians we shall take positions that will be for the betterment of our constituents living in council property.

Mr. O'Neill: I rise with some trepidation, as I am a prospective house owner with a mortgage. I am a passionate defender of the rights of council house tenants. Indeed, I am a council house tenant. Having said that, I must say that I share some of the misgivings of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) about the rate support grant. It has been suggested that the rate support grant legislation is understood by three people only, one of whom has forgotten about it, another is mad, and the other is dead. If those three people exist, they probably exist in New St. Andrew's House and are not allowed out very often. Certainly they have not been able to explain the workings of either the housing support grant or the rate support grant to the Secretary of State and his henchmen.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it has been demonstrated that there is one person who understands those matters? He is the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan). I wonder into which classification he is to be fitted.

Mr. O'Neill: If my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire is to be believed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) may

be the person who wishes to forget what he did.
We must remember that if we are to have a serious debate on the level of rent increases and local government finance, we must have this information. I was a member of the Select Committee, and I was fortunate enough to have the opportunity to take evidence from senior civil servants in the Scottish Office, who were briefed by the former Secretary of State for Scotland, my right hon. Friend the Member for Craigton. Having obtained a glimmer of understanding about how the system may work. I found it a singularly unedifying experience to listen to the civil servants who were most reluctant to be specific about interest levels, levels of assumptions or levels of inflation in the year ahead. Perhaps in December of last year they were not to know that the Government's policy would be as disastrous as it has turned out to be, and that inflation would be running at 22 per cent.
If we are to have a serious debate on the major factors relating to the income and expenditure of our people, we need an adequate and clear exposition of the basis upon which the financing of housing is calculated and the basis upon which rents will have to rise in the coming year. We know that under this Government local government is becoming less and less local and that local authorities are having to follow the diktats of Ministers rather than use their own initiatives to raise funds and revenue. When they raise revenue through traditional methods of rates, and when they seek to defend services by increasing rates, they are subject to what is tantamount to abuse from Conservative Members. We have seen that happen with authorities that do not have responsibility for housing, but progressive authorities, such as that in the Lothian region, have been pilloried and excoriated by Conservative Members.

Mr. Albert McQuarrie: Rubbish.

Mr. O'Neill: I had not realised that any Conservatives were alive. I was beginning to wonder whether they were simply part of the decoration. I am glad to know that they are present, and I hope that after they have the opportunity to explain to their people how the rate


support and housing support grants operate, and to explain the level of rate rises in East Aberdeenshire, East Fife or North Fife they will win the support of those people in the forthcoming election. I am sure that they will need that support, but I do not think that they will get it, because the intransigence of the Government in explaining local Government finance, and the process of obfuscation that has continued since they took office, have made the job of local authorities even more difficult than it used to be.
We want to know the assumptions upon which the rent levels will be based in the years ahead, and we want local authorities to have the opportunity to plan sensibly. We are concerned about the beggaring of local authorities in respect of housing. The beggaring process is an attempt to make local authorities force up rents so that people will say "If these are the level of rent rises, perhaps it would be better to try to buy a council house". However, when they make the calculations and find that it is even more expensive to buy a house, they decide to continue to rent at the excessive rents that the Government's policies require, and which have been levied without any clear indication of the reasoning behind them or of any worthwhile information upon which longer-term projections can be made.

Mr. Rifkind: From the unexpected, uncomplimentary remarks that hon. Gentlemen made about civil servants, it would seem that we shall have some unexpected support in our efforts to reduce the size of the Civil Service, which they clearly feel is unnecessarily large.
The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) put forward many interesting arguments in favour of this new clause. However, he did not give any indication on the point that obviously concerned his hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) as to why his Government constantly refused to provide the sort of information that he is now passionately demanding. I appreciate that he was not a member of that Government, and that he may be anxiously looking to his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) to provide the answer. But, clearly, that is a matter that

he overlooked and that is entirely relevant to the situation. The situation is quite simple.

Mr. George Robertson: Will the Minister tell the House precisely how many orders the previous Government brought forward under the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1978?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman must realise that when that Act which produced this system was discussed the suggestion was put to the previous Government that information of this kind should be provided and the previous Government resisted it very strongly for reasons that are exactly the same as those which apply under the present Government. It is exactly this : what local authorities are concerned about first is the total size of their housing support grant. That is the information that the order provides. Secondly, the various assumptions to which the hon. Gentleman has referred are simply assumptions some of which have turned out to be correct and some of which will not turn out to be correct, irrespective of the Government who are putting them forward.
Indeed, if one ends up with a single average figure, it is likely to be a very un-revealmg piece of information. It will be simply an arbitrary and mechanical figure worked out by averaging a number of other figures, which will be of little help to local authorities.
In the housing support grant order, what we are concerned with is not, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) seemed to be suggesting, giving advice to local authorities, but providing them with the size of their housing support grant so that they can take that into account when determining their expenditure and the income that they are to receive from rents and rate contributions.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North also made some comments which were rather wide of the new clause in dealing with the question of mobility. When he considers the Bill, and in particular clause 25, I am sure that he will recognise that the present Government have done more to ensure and encourage mobility in Scotland and the removal of unnecessary residential qualifications than in any other


legislation that the House has ever considered.
The hon. Member for Provan raised the question of sales of council houses and the effect of that on local authorities' income. He will be aware that, certainly in the short term, a local authority that sold council houses would obviously have an income which would enable it to finance its housing expenditure far more cheaply than would otherwise have been available to it.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Before the Minister gets too far away from his reply to my comments, may I ask whether he is really saying that in the calculation of the housing support grant, the Government take no account of the direction in which they seek to influence local authorities in relation to the balance between new house building and the rehabilitation of older property, whether it be for local authority houses or assistance towards private landlords who wish to rehabilitate their older privately tenanted houses?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is becoming a bit confused between the housing support grant, which is what we are concerned with here, and the capital allocations to housing authorities, either on the housing revenue account or on the non-housing revenue account, when we certainly look at the details of the housing plan of the local authority and are able to make an allocation to individual local authorities based on their needs as shown by their housing plans. It is exactly in that area that successive Governments have acknowledged the very relevant factors to which the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention.
In conclusion, I simply say that in this matter we are following the previous Government's practice. Nothing has changed to justify any change from that practice. The arguments which convinced Opposition Members that a provision of this kind was undesirable are exactly the arguments which equally convince my right hon. Friend and myself and, I am sure, will convince the House.

Mr. George Robertson: The Minister was quite correct in saying that I was not a member of the previous Government. But the corollary of that is that he, until his sudden demise from the Opposition

Front Bench, was actually a party to the accusations that were made to my right hon. and hon. Friends in the previous Government about not providing information. Now we have the revealing gesture by the Minister that, although he confesses that under the previous Government certain information was demanded, the present Government will now retreat behind exactly the same smokescreen which they attacked during the previous Administration and they will use exactly the same arguments. The Minister openly says that they will use the same arguments in justification for not providing the information.
When the present Government took power, they had a number of press conferences. They told the press then that this would be a new Government, a Government of access, that open government would be the order of the day, and that they would make available as much information to the press and to the public as was humanly possible. I was approached by one of the journalists at one of those press conferences who told me about this. He said that he had been convinced by it. I expressed some doubt. I said that time would tell whether the bold protestations of the new Ministers would come true.
Now we hear this evening this pathetic justification for keeping back the basic information. The justifications are that the local authorities do not want to know it anyway, because all that they want to know is the size of the housing support grant, and not the breakdown. We are told that these are simply assumptions, and that some of them will be correct and some will not be correct. The Government can abandon assumptions overnight, but local authorities in Scotland and elsewhere must live with the amounts of money paid out by the Government at the beginning of the year. The present Government, far more than any previous Government, have said that they will not move at all from cash limits or from rate support grant orders other than by reducing them during the following year. COSLA has already protested that local authorities are suffering real cuts in the amount allocated by the Government in the RSG and in the housing support grant, both through the cash limits and in real reductions exhorted upon them by Ministers.
Therefore, of course the local authorities would want to know the basic assumptions on which the figures are garnered. They would obviously want to know which of these were correct and which were proved by history and experience not to be correct. The Minister says that these are simple aggregates and averages of the figures that are identified in section 1(3) of the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act and that they would be unrevealing aggregates and unrevealing statistics But we are talking here of the Government's estimates of the level of interest rates, remuneration, costs and prices which, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, would affect the amount of eligible expenditure for that year. In addition, we are talking about the latest information available as to changes in the general level of earnings which would affect the amount of relevant income which could reasonably be expected for that year.
These are the statistics and figures that are being churned out by the Government day in and day out and on which the Secretary of State is making decisions which will affect the level of rates paid by every householder in Scotland and the level of expenditure that every local authority will have to live with during the coming year. But we are told that local authorities do not want to know about it, that they are simply assumptions and that they would be unrevealing if they were to be given to the House.
I do not wish to go into the arguments adduced, not for the first time, by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie), but the matter still goes back to the point that there is a need for information, if only to explain the extraordinary housing support grant order this year, an order which, on the

basis of the Government's calculations, would have led to an increase in council house rents in Scotland of 37 per cent.—a clear 17 per cent. higher than the existing rate of inflation, which is in itself 3 per cent. or 4 per cent. higher than the rate of inflation that applied when the housing support grant order was brought before the House.

We need to know the assumptions that were made—the clearly erroneous assumptions—which allowed the Government to come forward with a housing support grant order which would have increased council house rents by as much as 37 per cent.

The House needs more information. It is entitled to more information. The Government should be more forthcoming. It is not good enough for the Minister to say that the previous Government, at times, resisted giving some of this information. That is not an argument at all, especially when the Conservatives spent a lot of time under the previous Administration saying that such information was necessary. The new clause states our belief that the information should be published. We believe that there is good reason for saying so and that, if any evidence for saying so is necessary, it is this year's housing support grant order in Scotland.

The Government have given a pathetic explanation of why that information is not to be provided. It is completely unacceptable. On that basis we shall divide the House in order that the Conservatives' emtpy gestures under the previous Administration are shown up for what they were.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time :—

The House divided : Ayes 208, Noes 263.

Division No. 351]
AYES
[8.00 pm



Abse, Leo
Bradley, Tom
Conlan, Bernard


Adams, Allen
Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cook, Robin F.


Alton, David
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Cowans, Harry


Anderson, Donald
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)
Cox, Tom (Wandsworth, Tooting)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Buchan, Norman
Crowther, J. S.


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)
Cryer, Bob


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Campbell, Ian
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Ashton, Joe
Campbell-Savours, Dale
Cunningham, George (Islington S)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Cant, R. B.
Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Dalyell, Tarn


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Cartwright, John
Davidson, Arthur


Beith, A. J.
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Davit, Clinton, (Hackney Central)


Bidwell, Sydney
Cohen, Stanley
Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Coleman, Donald
Deakins, Eric


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Dewar, Donald




Dixon, Donald
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Dobson, Frank
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)
Robertson, George


Dormand, Jack
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Robinson, Peter (Belfast East)


Douglas, Dick
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rooker, J. W.


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Dubs, Alfred
Kilfedder, James A.
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Rowlands, Ted


Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)
Lamble, David
Ryman, John


Dunnett, Jack
Lamborn, Harry
Sandelson, Neville


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Leadbitter, Ted
Sever, John


Eastham, Ken
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)
Sheerman, Barry


Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)
Lewis, Ron ( Carlisle)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)


English, Michael
Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Evans, John (Newton)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwlch)


Ewing, Harry
McCartney, Hugh
Silverman, Julius


Field, Frank
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Skinner, Dennis


Filch, Alan
McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)


Fiannery, Martin
McKelvey, William
Soley, Clive


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Maclennan, Robert
Spearing, Nigel


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
McNally, Thomas
Spriggs, Leslie


Forrester, John
Magee, Bryan
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)


Foster, Derek
Mark", Kenneth
Stott, Roger


Foulkes, Georga
Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)
Strang, Gavin


Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Straw, Jack


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Maxton, John
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


George, Bruce
Maynard, Miss Joan
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Meacher, Michael
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Ginsburg, David
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East)


Graham, Ted
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)
Torn ay, Tom


Grant, John (Islington C)
Mitchell, R. C. (Solon, Itchen)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)
Watkins, David


Hardy, Peter
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Weetch, Ken


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Morton, George
Wellfoeioved, James


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Weish, Michael


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Newens, Stanley
White, Frank Fl. (Bury & Radcliffe)


Haynes, Frank
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Ogden, Eric
Whitehead, Phillip


Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)
O'Halloran, Michael
Whillock, William


Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)
O'Neill, Martin
Wigley, Dafydd


Home Robertson, John
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Homewood, William
Palmer, Arthur
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Hooley, Frank
Park, George
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)


Horam, John
Parker, John
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Parry, Robert
Winnick, David


Howelfs, Geraint
Pavitt, Laurie
Woodall, Alec


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Penhaligon, David
Woolmer, Kenneth


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Young, David (Bolton East)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Preacott, John



Janner, Hon Greville
Race, Reg
TELLERS FOR THE AYES :


John, Brynmor
Radice, Giles
Mr. Joseph Dean and


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)
Mr. James Tinn.


Johnson, Walter (Derby South)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)





NOES


Adley, Robert
Brittan, Leon
Corrie, John


Aitken, Jonathan
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Costain, A. P.


Alexander, Richard
Brooke, Hon Peter
Cranborne, Viscount


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)
Critchley, Julian


Arnold, Tom
Browne, John (Winchester)
Dean, Paul (North Somerset)


Aspinwall, Jack
Bruce-Gardyne, John
Dickens, Geoffrey


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Buck, Antony
Dorrell, Stephen


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Budgen, Nick
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Bulmer, Esmond
Dover, Denshore


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Burden, F. A.
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Banks, Robert
Butler, Hon Adam
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)


Bell, Sir Ronald
Cadbury, Jocelyn
Durant, Tony


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Best, Keith
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Eggar, Timothy


Bitten, Rt Hon John
Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Elliott, Sir William


Biggs-Davison, John
Channon, Paul
Emery, Peter


Blackburn, John
Chapman, Sydney
Falrbairn, Nicholas


Body, Richard
Churchill, W. S.
Fairgrieve, Russell


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Faith, Mrs Sheila


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)
Farr, John


Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Bowden, Andrew
Clegg, Sir Walter
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Cockeram, Eric
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Braine, Sir Bernard
Colvin, Michael
Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)


Bright, Graham
Cope, John
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Brinton, Tim
Cormack, Patrick
Fookes, Miss Janet







Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Macfarlane, Neil
Rifkind, Malcolm


Fox, Marcus
MacKay, John (Argyll)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Fry, Peter
McNair-Wilsor", Michael (Newbury)
Rossi, Hugh


Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Garel-Jones, Tristan
McQuarrie, Albert
Scott, Nicholas


Glyn, Dr Alan
Madel, David
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Goodhew, Victor
Major, John
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Goodlad, Alastalr
Mariand, Paul
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Gow, Ian
Marten, Neil (Banbury)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Gower, Sir Raymond
Mates, Michael
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Mather, Carol
Silvester Fred


Gray, Hamish
Maude, Rt Hon Angus
Sims, Roger


Greenway, Harry
Mawby, Ray
Skeet, T. H. H.


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Smith, Dudley (War. and Leam'ton)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Speller, Tony


Grist, Ian
Mayhew, Patrick
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)


Grylis, Michael
Mellor, David
Squire, Robin


Gummer, John Selwyn
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&Ew'll)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)
Stanley, John


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mills, lain (Mariden)
Steen, Anthony


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Stevens, Martin


Hannam, John
Miscampbell, Norman
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Haselhurst, Alan
Moate, Roger
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)


Hastings, Stephen
Monro, Hector
Stokes, John


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Montgomery, Fergus
Stradling Thomas, J.


Hawkins, Paul
Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)
Tapsell, Peter


Hawksley, Warren
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)
Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)


Heddle, John
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Henderson, Barry
Mudd, David
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Murphy, Christopher
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Myles, David
Thompson, Donald


Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Neale, Gerrard
Thornton, Malcolm


Hooson, Tom
Nelson, Anthony
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)


Hordern, Peter
Neubert, Michael
Trippier, David


Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)
Newton, Tony
Trotter, Neville


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Nott, Rt Hon John
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Onslow, Cranley
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham
Waddington, David


Hurd, Hon Douglas
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)
Wakeham, John


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Parkinson, Cecil
Waldegrave, Hon William


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Parris, Mathew
Walker, Bill (Perth & Perthshire)


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Patten, John (Oxford)
Waller, Gary


Kershaw, Anthony
Pattle, Geoffrey
Walters, Dennis


Kimball, Marcus
Pawsey, James
Ward, John


King, Rt Hon Tom
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Knight, Mrs Jill
Pink, R. Bonner
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage)


Knox, David
Pollock, Alexander
Whitney, Raymond


Lamont, Norman
Porter, George
Wickenden, Keith


Lang, Ian
Prentice. Rt Hon Reg
Wlggln, Jerry


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Wilkinson, John


Latham, Michael
Prior, Rt Hon James
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Lawrence, Ivan
Proctor, K. Harvey
Winterton, Nicholas


Lawson, Nigel
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Wolfson, Mark


Lee, John
Raison, Timothy
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Rathbone, Tim
Younger, Rt Hon George


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Rees-Davies, W. R.



Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Ronton, Tim



Loveridge, John
Rhodes James, Robert
TELLERS FOR THE NOES :


Lyell, Nicholas
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


McCrindle, Robert
Ridsdale, Julian
Mr. Anthony Berry.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 20

RESTRICTION ON RIGHT TO BUY IN DISTRICTS WITH INSUFFICIENT HOUSING STARTS

' The tenant's right to purchase under section 1 of this Act shall not apply where a dwelling-house is in the area of a district or islands council where the Secretary of State, on the application of the islands or district council concerned certifies that the number of housing starts of that housing authority is twenty-five per cent. less than the number identified as necessary in the housing plan which it has

submitted to the Secretary of State.'.—[Mr. Millan.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Millan: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take new clause 24—Exemption Powers of Secretary of State—Government amendment No. 34, and the following amendments :
No. 38, in clause 1, page 4, line 21, at end insert ' or
(b) where a dwellinghouse is part of a multistoreyed block except where all tenants have exercised their right to buy.'


No. 39, in page 4, line 21, at end insert—
' (9A) This section shall not apply to dwelling-houses in an area which is designated a reserved area by the islands or district council within whose area it is situated where the Secretary of State, on the application of the islands or district council concerned, makes an order, which shall be made by statutory instrument, to that effect
(9B) An order under subsection (9A) above may be applied for where in the opinion of the islands or district council concerned further sales in the reserved area would be unduly detrimental to the interests of applicants on its housing list or of tenants of the council who are seeking transfer to other houses belonging to the council or would upset the balance of housing stock belonging to the council '
No. 251, in page 4, line 21 at end insert—
' (9A) This section shall not apply to dwelling houses :

(a) which have been listed under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 as being of special architectural or historic interest and
(b) which are in a Conservation Area designated under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972.

Mr. Millan: New clause 20 imposes a restriction on the right to buy in districts with insufficient housing starts. These clauses, and the amendments taken with them, bring us to the heart of the Bill—the sale of council houses in Scotland. I restate briefly our implacable objection to what the Government are doing here. I shall not speak at length, because we had extensive debates on this subject upstairs in Committee and on Second Reading, but I wish to put on the record our objection in principle to the Government's policy.
The Government are imposing a rigidity that is unjustified by the circumstances and that will do tremendous damage to council housing in Scotland. It will prejudice the interests of existing tenants as well as those on waiting lists and those awaiting transfer to better accommodation. The Government are imposing their will on the local authorities in a completely dictatorial way, regardless of the wishes of those authorities or the circumstances in particular areas. They take no account of the effect that these compulsory sales will have on housing lists and waiting lists in these areas.
The discounts being offered are completely unjustified. They are a waste of

public money and an extravagant use of public resources. To add insult to injury, the provision in clause 5 compels local authorities, against their wishes, to give loans in certain circumstances where building societies, presumably for good reasons, have turned down applicants for building society loans. We are opposed to these matters in principle.
8.15 pm
What is more, we do not believe that the Government have a mandate for this policy in Scotland. They did not have a mandate after the general election in Scotland, and the issue was ventilated again at the district council elections last month. We all know the results of those. It is no use saying that the district elections were about other matters. Of course they were, but they were also about the sale of council houses. In the Daily Record the Conservatives inserted a full-page advertisement exhorting council house tenants to stop paying rents, vote Conservative and buy their own homes, thus investing in a growing asset. That advertisement was inserted on 1 May, the eve of the poll. The Conservatives introduced the matter quite dramatically into the district election campaign and we all know the result—a massive and shattering defeat for the Tories.
There is a legitimate area of interest for the Government in this matter. I took that view when we were in office, and I still maintain it. However, there must be a balance between the rights of central and local government. In the Bill the rights of local government—and after all, local councillors are democratically elected by the people and they have a legitimate right to govern in their own areas—are completely set aside. Local authorities are being compelled to follow policies that they consider politically distasteful and detrimental to the interests of the people whom they represent and who voted for them. The next Labour Government will repeal these provisions.
We are well aware that there is not the slightest prospect—in view of their arrogant mood—of the Government's accepting any proposition to remove these provisions from the Bill. That is why our amendments do not go that far. They put forward a number of ways in which the Government, if they are sensible, can grasp the opportunity to avoid a confrontation with district authorities in


Scotland that is otherwise inevitable. There are a number of ways in which that can be done, and I shall describe them. Our amendments are directed at reducing the worst effects of the Government's legislation rather than eliminating them altogether. They are designed to offset the worst effects of the Bill in areas where it will do the most damage—areas of acute housing shortage, where there is tremendous demand for council housing.
It is obvious that if the Bill goes through as it stands the most desirable houses in the most desirable areas will sell first and to the greatest extent. The Government once tried to deny that by claiming that if the prices were right houses would sell in all areas, however undesirable and unpopular they might be. That is absolute nonsense. It is against all experience, reasoning and common sense. It is against the knowledge that those of us who represent large council house areas have of the wishes and feelings of the people in those areas. There can be no doubt that if the Bill goes through in its present form the houses in the best areas will sell quickly, to the detriment of other council house tenants and those on the waiting lists.
The new clause would apply a restriction in an area where there was a deficiency in housing starts compared with what had been agreed not just by the local authority but by the Secretary of State in the housing plan submitted by the local authority concerned. Under the new clause the Secretary of State would have a role to play. The new clause would not operate unless he gave his permission. In principle that is undesirable, but this is a modest new clause and in the circumstances we are willing to make that concession. This is one way of eliminating some of the damage that would otherwise be done by the Bill.
When we discussed the problems of rural areas earlier today, we again experienced the arrogance and the dogmatism of the Government. There are other considerations than those of rural areas. We believe that there should not be compulsory sales of council houses where insufficient new housing is being built. The new clause would not prevent local authorities voluntarily selling council houses where they felt it necessary,

but it would eliminate compulsion to sell against the wishes of local authorities and the inhabitants of the area.
New clause 24, in the name of the Scottish National Party, deals with the problem in a different way. It provides exemptions for areas or categories where specific housing is in short supply, and again provides a role for the Secretary of State. It is one way to limit the damage that the Bill will do. It will introduce a necessary element of flexibility to enable land authorities to exercise discretion and and judgment in the light of local circumstances. I have no objection to that new clause.

Amendment No. 39 tackles the problem in a general way. It is my preferred amendment. I drafted it. It would be the most effective instrument to tackle the problem, but I do not disparage the two new clauses, which are perfectly acceptable. We must introduce an element of flexibility in the Bill, which can be done in different ways. Without that flexibility, the situation will be disastrous for some areas. Our major plea is for the Government to introduce that flexibility. We shall be pleased to consider any effective amendment that they put forward.

Under amendment No. 39 the local authority could designate certain areas as reserve areas, where no further sales would be permitted, at least under clause 1. The Secretary of State would again have to give permission, but the amendment would allow the local authority to take the view that further sales in an area would be unduly detrimental to the interests of applicants on the housing list or council tenants seeking transfer to other council houses or would upset the balance of council housing.

Local authorities would be able to say that they had applied the provisions of the Bill, whether they liked it or not, but that it had been demonstrated that in certain highly desirable and popular areas large numbers of houses were being sold, which was detrimental to tenants or those on waiting lists. They would be able to apply to the Secretary of State for a ban in those areas where sales had gone too far, and they would hope to persuade even this Secretary of State of that. That is an important element of flexibility. It would allow discretion and judgment to be exercised by local authorities, with the approval of the Secretary of State. If the


Government were sincere in wanting to meet, to even a small extent, the wishes of local democracy, they would accept such an amendment. The Government would be wise to accept the flexibility offered in all the options, which is very much in the interests of local authorities and their tenants.

There is then a Government amendment, which I shall not deal with. Amendment No. 251 is a Liberal amendment, which deals with the problems of areas of special architectural interest. I have considerable sympathy with it.

Amendment No. 38 is in my name. It deals with the problems of multi-storey blocks, and would prevent sales. Another amendment dealing with the problem was tabled in Committee, but was not debated. Some hon. Members have considerable experience of multi-storey blocks in their constituencies. Let me first deal with the background. First, there is the myth that they came about during the Labour Government, because of the enthusiasm of Labour authorities. The opposite is true. Encouragement for multi-storey building in Scotland occurred during a Conservative Government. I do not argue that the Government were completely wrong. Encouragement occurred over only a short period. Many of these blocks cause considerable social and housing problems.

Secondly, again contrary to popular myth, not all multi-storey blocks are undesirable. I have some extremely good ones in my constituency. Many of these blocks provide a standard of council accommodation as good as that in other more generally recognised popular areas. They are not slums. Some of these blocks are problematic, but others are extremely desirable.

Anyone who knows anything about multi-storey blocks or the old tenement blocks in Scotland knows that multi-ownership will cause immense problems. Maintenance of good accommodation and environmental standards, and keeping the property in good repair, which can sometimes be expensive, depends on having a single owner and a coherent approach to maintenance and repair. In good, popular and well-maintained multi-storey blocks, which will be attractive to buy, it will be disastrous to have multi-ownership. It will cause immense problems with repairs and maintenance, particularly when, as

can happen in the best constructed blocks, occupants are faced with major and expensive repairs.

It is difficult to get agreement between eight owner-occupiers in a tenement block. The problem will be even worse in a multi-storey block, with 50 or 60 different interests to take into account If the Government want to push ahead with their dogmatic approach to council house sales they will make a profound mistake if they proceed with sales of multi-storey accommodation. I hope that the Minister will not say that there will be missives, leases and understandings. Legally, one can provide for all eventualities, but making agreements work in practice is a different matter. Anybody who knows anything about the problems will be appalled at the prospect of multistorey blocks being sold compulsorily in bits, against the wishes of a local authority.

There must be flexibility. With a general flexibility it will be possible to encompass the problems created by multistorey blocks because of the provision to apply for exemption. A general flexibility must be written into the legislation. That is what the two new clauses and amendment No. 39 provide. There must be exclusions, and multi-storey blocks should be excluded.

If the Government do not change course or modify their position they will be set on a collision course with many local authorities in Scotland. Let there be no mistake about that. I have never encouraged a local authority to break the law. I shall not do that under any circumstances, because that is not the way in which elected Members should behave. However, the Secretary of State will make a grave mistake if he believes that all that is at issue is a political argument that will blow away in a few months, and that he will then achieve the co-operation of local authorities. That will not happen. This is not a temporary problem. Deep-seated feelings and emotions are aroused by the Government's attitude. The Government do not have the support of the electors in Scotland. They certainly do not have the support of the district councils. Almost without exception, Labour-controlled councils are violently opposed to the Bill.

The Government are experiencing many other confrontations. They forced the highest rate increases for many years. They have problems with local authority manpower and budgets, as well as unemployment problems and other industrial difficulties. Yet the Government are deliberately taking on another series of problems which will lead to critical clashes between central Government and local Government in Scotland. The clashes will do no good to Scotland, or to people living in council houses.

There is still time for the Secretary of State to draw back a little. I do not expect him to abandon the provisions, although I wish he would. He should introduce some flexibility into the legislation. That would give it a chance to work and to take into account some of the local interests. That is the argument in favour of the amendments.

Mr. Cook: I am pleased to speak in support of new clause 20, standing in my name and that of my right hon. Friend, which my right hon. Friend has moved so ably and so eloquently. The new clause provides that a local authority shall be exempt from the provisions of this section of the Act if it is unable to build the houses that it has estimated are necessary in the course of the preparation of its housing plan.
I believe firmly that if a local authority is unable to build the houses that it believes are necessary to meet housing need in the area, because the Government have not made the necessary capital allocation, it would be grotesque if the authority was also obliged by the Government to sell off those houses it already possesses which would otherwise become available for re-letting to meet a portion of the housing it has identified.
One of the most severe challenges that will be posed to responsible housing authorities as a result of the Bill is the arbitrary element that will be injected into their forward planning. As the result of an initiative by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown), when he was in charge of housing policy at the SDD, there is now an obligation on local authorities to prepare an annual statement of the need in their area for the next five years and an annual statement of how they propose to match

that need. There is no point in expecting a local authority to go through a sensitive and sophisticated calculation of how many houses it will need during the next five years, or how many houses it proposes to build, if the unknown quantity of how many tenants will choose to exercise their rights is suddenly injected into the calculation.
A local authority will have no discretion and cannot possibly plan for that event. It will have no control over the rate at which its housing stock diminishes, although it will be held responsible for the rate at which the housing stock increases. Faced with the challenge that will be posed to housing authorities, the logical response by Government would be to scrap the housing plan system so that they are not faced with the embarrassing details of the housing need that remains to be satisfied after five years.
I was intrigued to notice that the Government wrote to COSLA in January saying that they would like to streamline the housing plan system. That apparently consisted of reducing the housing plans from an annual event to an event that occurred every four years. The next housing plan would not be required for another four years, which would conveniently take the calculation of housing need in a local auhority area beyond the span of the public expenditure White Paper, which makes plain that no local authority will get the capital allocation it needs to match the housing need that it identifies in its housing plan at present.
I ask the Secretary of State to take note of the reply sent by COSLA before the May election at a time when those in charge of the housing committee of COSLA were not dominated by the colour of the Opposition side of this Chamber. The reply was that the local authorities were satisfied with the housing plan system and that they did not want to give it up. They wished, however, that the Secretary of State would pay more attention to the capital allocation consequences of the estimate of housing need that they were preparing on his behalf.
There is scant sign that the Secretary of State will pay much attention to the estimate of housing need being prepared. What he proposes can be seen from the public expenditure White Paper. A


study of the table of figures shows that, in the four years covered by the White Paper, expenditure on housing in Scotland will fall from £702 million to £410 million, a drop of 42 per cent.—nearly half. That is by far the largest cut in any of the budget programmes contained in the White Paper.
It is a clear and deliberate attempt to pile the maximum amout of public expenditure cuts on to housing provision. The White Paper is different from previous White Papers. It does not set out how money in future years shall be spent. We do not know how much of the saving will come out of rent subsidy. The Secretary of State intends, perhaps, that all the saving should come from rent subsidy. In that case, it will be necessary for rents to be increased three times in real terms over the next five years. It is difficult to believe that is what the Secretary of State intends.
Some of the cuts presumably will come from capital expenditure on housing. They cannot come entirely from capital expenditure because the amount the right hon. Gentleman proposes to save is greater than capital expenditure on housing in Scotland. Even if he stopped building or modernising all houses, he would not achieve the saving that he proposes.
Plainly, a large element of the saving will come out of the capital allocation, at a time when we cannot afford to be complacent about the present level of housing provision in Scotland. One in 10 of the householders in Scotland still lives at an overcrowded level, by the bedroom standard. That is three times the average for England and Wales. One in 15 of householders in Scotland still lives in houses that are identified as being below a tolerable standard. If we add those figures together, we are talking about ½ million householders in Scotland who are living in conditions that are, by any definition, inadequate and which will be remedied only if there is additional building.
It is already clear from the evidence that hon. Members are getting from their constituencies and local councillors that there is unlikely to be much additional building. Some major housing authorities are in great difficulty over their house building programmes. I understand that

Aberdeen is having to choose between continuing with the houses under construction, and running out of land next year, and abandoning the houses under construction in order to have some capital to purchase land on which to build next year. Either way, there may well be an annual hiatus in the building programmes.
It is not just the large, urban, Labour-controlled authorities which are in difficulty. There are also considerable protests from the rural areas, where the councillors in charge are concerned not for doctrinaire or dogmatic reasons, but because they see the consequences for their areas and the people whom they represent.
The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) referred earlier to the case of Badenock and Strathspey. That authority has had a bid for 300 houses in its programme cut to 130 houses and has written to the Secretary of State to point out that more than 130 of the families for which it was building live in caravans and will have to continue to do so, because the council is not being given the money with which to build the houses that those people need.
Badenock and Strathspey councillors are not, as far as I am aware, paid-up members of the Tribune group or subscribers to Militant, but they were so outraged that they sent a circular to every housing authority in Scotland containing thoughts that I offer to the Secretary of State to take to the Cabinet, since they are couched in a way that may carry some influence even there. The circular said :
Councillors here take the view that the provision of housing is paramount and an essential source of stability in the country, equivalent in importance to "—
I ask my hon. Friends who have taken time off from considering the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill in Committee to note this passage—
and of assistance to the maintenance of law and order.
That is correct. If councils are left with inadequate, unsatisfactory housing conditions, we shall store up not only housing problems, but other social problems that will flow from that housing stress.
Another dimension of the effects of the cuts in capital expenditure came to my attention only recently. Documents are
coming out from the SSHA about the effect on its forward programme of the cuts in its capital allocation. Those documents were successfully concealed from hon. Members until after our recent debate on the SSHA order. It is clear from those documents that the consequence of the sharp reduction in the capital allocation to the SSHA is that there will be virtually no building by the SSHA outside Glasgow before 1984–85.
One of the many ironies in this situation is that the local authority that will be most affected by the postponement of its building programme is the authority that includes the constituency of the Minister responsible for housing. Edinburgh will suffer most as the result of the postponement of its capital allocation by one of the city's Members of Parliament. The main reason why Edinburgh will suffer most is that for the past six years we have had in charge of housing policy in the city Conservative councillors who have deliberately run down the building programme to a level at which in the past year the authority started a mere 30 houses in a city of ½ million. Those Tory councillors justify the reduction in local authority house building on the basis that they have a bold and expanding SSHA programme which will take up the slack.
8.45 pm
Unfortunately, as a result of the capital cuts introduced by the Government there will be no SSHA building in Edinburgh before 1985. Some sites that have been standing empty for a decade will continue to grow weeds and have scrap and other objects dumped on to them. That will happen in my constituency over the next five years without a sod being turned to provide the houses so desperately needed in that housing stress area.
Looking ahead, even beyond 1985 it is plain also that even after that period, in which there will be a virtual cessation of new building by the SSHA outside Glasgow, any future programme may be modest. We are seeking a choking off of an agency which has provided an essential source of local authority housing in many areas of Scotland. We shall now be unable even to help it fulfil its role in support of economic expansion.
As hon. Members are aware, I am no great supporter of the proposal to build a nuclear power station at Torness. I think that I can claim to speak with complete impartiality when I say that a matter which should concern the House is the fact that among the projects specifically named as requiring postponement is the provision of houses in support of the construction of the Torness nuclear power station.
We have the absurd situation in which the Government are pressing ahead with the construction of that power station when their policy is to refuse to make available the necessary expenditure to meet the housing consequences that go with economic expansion.
I was horrified at the weekend—and I hope that hon. Members will share my shock—to discover that a young couple in Dumbarton setting up home together for the first time, are being obliged to set up that home in a single furnished room for which they are paying £30 per week. That is the result of the competition from construction workers in the area for whom no additional housing is being provided. There will be many more such cases in future as a result of the squeeze that will be applied to our housing stock by simultaneously selling off houses com-pulsorily, and imposing cuts in the capital allocation of the order and magnitude that I have described.
The Government cannot have it both ways. They can either say that the sale of council houses is all right and that they will make the money available to replace them. That would be an extremely expensive way of proceeding, though it would avoid the social consequences arising from present policies. Or, alternatively, they can say that it is unnecessary to replace council houses because there is already such a large stock in the public sector, and that that stock will survive for a considerable time to come.
The Government cannot say that they will not replace council houses and deny local authorities the money to build additional new houses while they oblige those same local authorities to sell off houses to whichever tenant takes it into his head to buy irrespective of the need for additional houses for letting in that local authority area. That is downright


irresponsible and will undoubtedly give rise to much pain and suffering in our country over the next five to 10 years as young couples find it much more difficult to obtain the housing to let that they require.
They may not see that coming now. There may be very few people in Scotland at present who perceive how the Bill will affect them and reduce their chances of a decent home. But I assure the Secretary of State that as they become more numerous and as they ask why they cannot have the chance of a decent home we will lose no opportunity to tell them who is to blame for that situation.

Mr. Russell Johnston: In opening the debate the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) used quite strong language. He is not given to the use of excessive rhetoric, but on this occasion he was entirely justified in what he said. The way in which he condemned the Government for setting aside the rights of local government to determine local issues was valid. I cannot accept that previous Labour Governments have always been blameless, but there is no doubt in my mind that the Government rightly stand condemned for a policy that is far too rigid and inflexible. It is the intention of my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the clause if and when a Division takes place.
In some respects the clause is not different from amendment No. 255, the Liberal amendment. As the right hon. Member for Craigton said, various hon. Members from the Opposition Benches have been considering a variety of ways by which to introduce into the Bill the degree of flexibility that we consider it lacks.
My principal purpose is not to repeat all the arguments, but to draw attention to amendment No. 251, which confines itself to a fairly narrow issue. I understand that we are not to have a separate vote on that amendment. Nevertheless, I hope that a brief rehearsal of the arguments will influence the Government and that they will consider the possibility of tabling amendments in another place in due time.
The amendment seeks to widen the exemptions in the Bill that are presently confined to sheltered housing. The issue is concisely summarised in a letter that

my right hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) received from the director of administrative and legal services of the Roxburgh district council in January. My righ hon. Friend is fulfilling a longstanding engagement, but he will return to the Chamber for the vote.
The letter states :
Roxburgh District Council has recently been considering various provisions of the … Bill "—
that is the Tenants Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Bill—
and in particular the likely exclusions from those types of properties that it will become a local authority tenants' right to purchase. At the present time, no reference is made in the Bill to houses in listed buildings and conservation areas, many of which are being or have been reconstructed with great care and in most cases at extremely high cost. Such is the case with the houses which have already been provided in the central area of Jedburgh. This development has now received a Civic Trust Award, a Saltire Award and more recently a Europa Nostra Award, the only scheme of reconstruction in Britain to do so, and one of only five in Europe … A town centre reconstruction, such as has been done in Jedburgh, is primarily in the interests of the national heritage and the District Council is extremely concerned that deterioration in its appearance and structural condition may occur should any of the property be sold to individuals ".
Incidentally, I am told that in April the district valuer estimated that the housing units in Jedburgh would sell at between £11,000 and £14,500, although they cost between £23,000 and £27,000 to construct. That is an argument of some substance. There are reconstructions of a similar character in Edinburgh and Aberdeen. I have in mind the Wallace Tower development in Aberdeen. I have no doubt that many hon. Members could refer to other examples elsewhere. There is a case, on grounds of public expenditure and the protection of historic buildings, for the Government to reconsider their position.
I conclude by referring to the general issue. In all district authority areas in my constituency there are considerable housing waiting lists. That is not the case in all constituencies in the kingdom. However, it is certainly the case in Inver-nesshire and in other parts of the Highlands. Whenever I make myself available for constituency clinics, as Members of Parliament do, I find long lists of people coming to me to ask for houses.


That is true in Inverness burgh, in Aviemore, which is in the district council area of Badenoch and Strathspey, to which reference was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook). It is interesting to observe that in Aviemore there is a residential caravan site that houses above 100 people. It is currently under threat from the Earl of Seafield. These people are staying there for the simple reason that they have nowhere else to stay. They have no houses to go to. They live in this caravan site in a place called Edenkillie. They do not do so from choice. They do it because they just do not have any alternative. It is shameful that the Earl of Seafield, who owns vast acres, should cause distress and worry in this little patch in a great land holding. I am glad to have had an assurance that if there is any question of eviction, the Highland region will compulsorily purchase the land.
However, that is not the answer. There is a lack of local government housing. As was explained, in the case of this local authority, in the first place many units of its existing stock are highly attractive to people wanting to buy. In the second place, the cutbacks in public expenditure mean that the local authority can in no way meet the demand that is laid upon it. Therefore, it is caught from two sides. The Government should most carefully re-examine the situation.
I make one final quotation, referring to the fact that even where the Government have made exemptions and allowed the possibility of pre-emption, the Skye and Lochalsh district council, again within my constituency, has also been highly critical of this legislation and its inflexibility.
The chief executive remarks to me in a letter dated 14 March :
The effectiveness of a right of pre-emption depends on the District Council having available sufficient consent to incur capital expenses under section 94 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. In a situation where the capital allocation for a year is largely taken up by liabilities on contracts incurred before the beginning of the financial year, exercise of the right of pre-emption co "Id well be ruled out.

Even where the Government have accepted amendments to their legislation, it may well be that that kind of amendment will be futile and ineffective.
I plead with the Government to take seriously what was said by the right hon. Member for Craigtown and others and to insert into the legislation a great deal more flexibility than they have so far allowed.

Mr. Donald Dewar: I was not one of those who were fortunate enough—I use the term loosely—to be members of the Committee that debated the Bill. I have not had an opportunity prior to this to pass comment on the general principles that we are debating in these amendments. I echo the words used by my right hon. Friend the Shadow Secretary of State in terms of the spirit of deep anxiety that exists among local authority representatives at the moment. The point has been well and truly made that we find this feeling in unexpected places. It is not just the unique sign of a Labour-controlled council. If I may say so about West-Central Scotland, which is the area in which I have most of my contacts, I have no doubt that, unless we can build an element of flexibility into the system—and the Government may be grateful for that element in the months, and perhaps the years, ahead—we shall head for a situation of the utmost seriousness in terms of relationships between central and local government. That is bad for the system. It is bad not just for the Government, but for all in politics, whether in district councils or in central Government.
9 pm
It is perhaps now a vain hope, but there is a strong case for urging the Government, even at this last minute, to accept one of the various models that have been presented to them to allow them not necessarily to give concessions immediately but the option of giving concessions within the established statutory framework. They might wish to use such a model if some of the more unfortunate consequences of the selling of council houses were to take place, as we certainly expect Such flexibility would mitigate some of the worst effects and might allow the proper management of


the housing stock by individual district authorities.
My interest is simple. I represent a constituency in which about 96 per cent. of the electorate live in public sector housing. It is an area with extremes of council housing. We have some of the most popular residential areas in Glasgow. Unfortunately, there are some areas, where people voted largely with their feet, where there is a public perception that they are not good places in which to live, where there is the gravest difficulty in letting property on any terms and where the prospect that it may one day sell is a mad illusion.
In the less fortunate, less favoured, areas in my constituency there is a great deal of anxiety about the impact of this Bill. For example, Drumchapel is receiving about 25 per cent. of all people rehoused in the city of Glasgow under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act. Enormous numbers of people in that area are just waiting to move out. Conversely, anyone who wishes to move to Knightswood on a transfer will need to have had a local authority tenancy dating back to the early 1940s. Therefore, I have in my constituency a desired area and an area from which 60 per cent. or 70 per cent. of tenants are actively seeking a move.
I readily concede to the Secretary of State, who is nodding, that in areas such as Knightswood he can do all sorts of clever things. In Knightswood, there is a tendency for tenants to sit still, so there is a small turnover. I concede that movement into the area from the less favoured parts of my constituency is a slow and gradual process.
The point is self-evident and it is perhaps a cliche, but if at the end of the day we allow desirable houses to be sold out of the public sector stock, we destroy hope. When hope goes, in its wake comes a great deal of bitterness, confusion and division. I am genuinely scared that there will be significant numbers of sales—not as many as the Government visualise—in very small localised areas which are particularly important in terms of the public's perception of housing prospects and aspirations. That will create social tensions and bitterness of a kind that we have not seen for a very long time.
This is not a suitable arena for confesssions. However, I was a good deal more open minded three or four years ago about the prospect of selling council house than I am now. The reason was that at that stage I did not represent a constituency made up almost entirely of council house tenants. I hope that it will not be misinterpreted if I say that I have recanted to some extent. I deal daily with the problems of the Glasgow transfer list, and my view is that these provisions are a disastrous recipe for distress and social confusion. The Government must try to build in the element of flexibility that is represented in the various new clauses under discussion.
Both in my constituency and in the peripheral schemes throughout Western Scotland, the vast majority of those in less fortunate areas will see themselves as doubly disadvantaged. They were not fortunate in the initial allocation, and because of that they are being given no chance to benefit to some extent—and I use the words "to some extent" in inverted commas—from the opportunity to buy their council houses. I say it in inverted commas because I accept that many people, when they do their arithmetic and consider the cost of a mortgage and house maintenance, may find that it is a bargain that they cannot take, cannot afford, and that it is beyond their reach.
A double fraud is involved. The system will create the tensions to which I have referred. Even those who should benefit from the opportunity will find that it is snatched away from them. One reason for that is that in the areas that I have been discussing, such as Knightswood in my constituency, Moss Park in Glasgow, a large number of tenants are of pensionable age. They would find it extremely difficult to obtain a mortgage, even if they wished to do so. But that is a subsidiary plot, although a serious one. The main point is that those who have been unfortunate in the queue will see themselves as being doubly victimised in the way that I have described. They will resent it very deeply.
We should have an element of flexibility, even if it is in terms of a reserve area. I accept that if there is a reserved area within a city, or a district council geographical area, where the right to buy has been withdrawn, the Secretary of State


and his cohorts will argue that that in itself is unfair, and creates two different tenancies. I do not think that that is absolutely right. I have always thought that the Conservative Government stand for a free market. No doubt they would like to see a free market in the area of housing. The essential characteristic of a free market is that not only is there a willing buyer but there is a willing seller.
It is right that we should have some sort of mechanism that will allow the Government and district councils to come together and say that the whole management of the housing stock has been distorted, is out of synchronisation, and is being tilted in a way that is socially damaging. The options that are being taken up are being taken up on an unsatisfactory, localised basis. That is common sense.
We have a position of compulsory purchase in reverse. That should be anathema to those who preach about free market economies. There may be a willing buyer, but there is not a willing seller. He is selling under duress and compulsion. An escape clause from that position, if the distortions become obvious, is something for which the Government may be grateful in the months that lie ahead.
Many Labour Members have expressed their reservations and their considerable anxiety about the future in the area of housing. I do not wish to speak at great length on that point. I regard the whole matter as a deeply misconceived and misguided exercise, and one that we shall rue as time goes on. It is clearly an attempt to move away from housing policy dictated by social needs to a position where housing allocation will be dictated by the ability to pay. That is an inevitable concomitant, and an essential characteristic of the scheme that the Government are foisting on the people of Scotland.
If—I console myself with the thought that the "if" is a substantial one—we get council house sales in the way that I have described in the areas of high demand, on the scale which Conservative Members expect, I very much fear that we shall damage for ever the public's perception of public sector housing. Inevitably,

more and more public sector housing will be seen as a safety net provision. It will be a sort of supplementary benefit in housing terms, where people who are suffering misfortune or who have been unable to get a more advantageous holding in the housing market are taken on by the public sector. Naturally, in such situations, they will be given treatment which will be seen—perhaps wrongly—as second best.
I do not believe that anyone who operates in public sector housing, or who represents a council house constituency, is blind to the appalling dangers, even now, of the ghetto which builds itself within the public sector. The great fear among Labour Members is that the policies which are now being presented to us as a shining opportunity for social advance will turn a situation under which we get an occasional ghetto developing into one in which the public will see all public sector housing as one large ghetto or area of social failure.
I hope that those fears are exaggerated. However, in essence I believe that they are real. We are pleading with the Government to recognise how real those fears are, not just among politicians, who perhaps have a vested interest, but also among those who live in those areas. They should recognise that at this stage it is only simple common sense to build in the escape routes so that if at some future date those fears are justified, we can put our heads together and try to undo the damage which may well be done over the next three or four years.
It is all very well for Labour Members to say that we shall take steps when we return to power. But Parliaments can seem to last a long time when the social distortions which flow from this kind of policy are allowed to go unchecked. I very much hope that even now the Government will be prepared to listen.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said a great deal of what Opposition Members wish to say in relation to this matter. However, at the outset, I put it to the Minister that in the new clauses and amendments under discussion there is no frontal assault on the question of home ownership or, indeed, the sale of council houses. That battle was fought in Committee. What we are


now dealing with are ways by which some kind of discretion will be given to either the local authorities or the Secretary of State, or will be available to both the local authorities and the Secretary of State, to prevent some of the difficulties that have been mentioned.
I do not know what is the most difficult to criticise—the damage that the Government's plans will do to local democracy or the damage that will be done to the balance in the public housing stock. It is difficult to pick the one to which one might take the strongest opposition, but in relation to local democracy it undoubtedly means that the district councils, which have been given the function of dealing with council housing, will have no say in what will happen to the stock that has been built up over the years.
They have a duty to house the people living in their locality. They have a duty, which has been reinforced in recent years by the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act, to take care of those who have no home at all, but we are now finding that the stock of houses available to them may not be sufficient to deal with their statutory functions and their moral reponsibility.
Most hon. Members accept that local government should have the maximum amount of control over the functions given to it. Of course, financial restrictions have prevented local authorities from having complete freedom. On occasion, there have been pressures and policies to build certain types of houses—pressures that perhaps are now bitterly regretted by both central Government and local authorities. Here, the Government have made substantial inroads into local democracy, and I do not think that their excuse that they are giving back rights to individuals will wash, compared with the difficulty, distortion and damage that they will do.
9.15 pm
Hon. Members who represent urban constituencies are aware that in many areas the balance in housing is not good at present. There are differences between one area and another. Areas such as Drumchapel, to which the hon. Member for Garscadden referred, are not popular. People go there largely because they have no option. Houses are available there,

and if people do not take them they do not have a house, but once they move into such areas they find it extremely difficult to get out again. Some areas are good and popular, and there is a tremendous pressure to move from areas that are not perceived to be good into those that are.
One of the faults in our housing policy over the last 20 years has been that we have failed to build the sort of houses that make life easier for people. There are too few semi-detached and terraced houses, and too little housing with sensible living space. Instead, we have built battery-type housing, where people have to live close together, and if there are one or two anti-social families in a neighbourhood, life can be made hell for the other families there. Against that background, the Government's proposals will lead us into considerable difficulty.
I have mentioned the difference between areas, the fact that certain houses are more popular than others, and the fact that walk-ups are probably the least popular of all houses. My right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craig-ton (Mr. Millan) said that in his constituency there were multi-storey blocks of flats which provided a high quality of housing.
If there is a disparity between area and between class of house, there is also a disparity in respect of the size of houses. Often, families wish to move from three rooms to five rooms, or, in cases where families have grown up, the parents—or a widow or widower—wish to move from five rooms to three rooms. But they run into the problem of lack of availability of housing stock. There are too few smaller houses. Our population is getting older, and family sizes are smaller than they used to be. There is now an imbalance that has developed through birth trends or through the natural ageing process of the population, and it is causing trouble.
There is also the problem of houses that are in high demand—for example, ground-floor flats. That type of accommodation is wanted by older people who do not want sheltered accommodation but also do not want to have to climb stairs. Those houses are competed for by people with medical priorities, because they cannot climb stairs. Because of the cutback in housing finance—the grim background


against which all these discussions are taking place—houses may be sold which will not then be available for people who otherwise want them.
My main criticism of the Bill is that it will cause anarchy—if I may use that term—in the public housing sector. It will cause trouble, pain and anxiety for individuals. We should state clearly that although there are many good reasons why people should own their own homes, there is nothing wrong with people living in rented accommodation. That system has operated in Scotland for many years. It is perfectly respectable, and it has not been classified as social housing. There is a danger that if we begin to distort the situation—as may happen under this Bill—without the precautions that we wish to provide through the new clauses and amendments, we shall end up with welfare housing that is available only for those in the poorest circumstances and that has led to the creation of ghettos in countries such as the United States.
Last Friday I received a delegation from the Midcraigie and Liniathen housing estate community association. It is an estate that does not have a community council, but now, thankfully, it has an active and growing community association. The delegation handed me the massive petition that I am holding, which is addressed to the city of Dundee district council. It contains a very impressive list of names, on about 150 sheets of paper, from a wide range of addresses. The significant thing about this petition, which comes from people who hope to move from those areas into areas that they deem to be better, and who wish to have a choice in the rented sector, is that in the preface to the petition the signatories are not opposing the sale of council houses. But what they say—and this is very valid—is this :
We the undersigned object to the local authority selling off the best of the city's housing stock. We believe that whilst people in this city are living in low standard houses, the local authority's obligation is not to sell off the best stock, but to keep the best stock and improve the standard of the rest of the housing stock.
Those who are perhaps seeing the possibilities of a move disappear under this legislation have taken the line that it is the best stock that will be sold, and in that they are perfectly right.

Mr. O'Neill: Does the hon. Member concede that his rhetoric might sound a lot less empty if those of us who have had experience of Scottish nationalist-controlled local authorities did not know that they have been prepared to sell any kind of house—good, bad or indifferent—to anyone who was prepared to buy it, without qualification?

Mr. Wilson: I do not accept that as a general rule. There was one local authority that was prepared to sell. Many others were willing to sell, but only under protections that they considered necessary. The hon. Gentleman's point comes from a rather poisoned source, he holding—temporarily, I hope—a seat that was taken from the SNP. I have always noticed that those who are most sensitive are those who are rather worried about their future—otherwise they would never rise to the bait.
I have quoted the terms of the petition which was brought to me from the Midcraigie and Liniathen community association. That association has put before the House the problem that will arise under the Bill. The Government have failed to recognise that one man's right to buy can lead to a loss for other tenants under the system.

Mr. Norman Buchan: Good man.

Mr. Wilson: I have been patronised by the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) in the past, and I presume that I shall be patronised again.

Mr. Bill Walker: I am very interested in the hon. Gentleman's comments about the Midcraigie and Liniathen community association. Is he suggesting that no one in that area will buy any of the houses there? If he is suggesting that, I can assure him that he has got the matter wrong. I grew up in that area. I still have friends living there. There are some who are interested in buying their homes in that area. [Interruption.]

Mr. Wilson: Some individuals may well buy. I am not sure whether it is the hon. Gentleman's parents who are willing to buy and whether he is contributing to the funds in the way suggested by others or whether he wants to make a quick profit or a quick killing. I do not know. I know that professional advisers


might well tell their clients to be very careful about buying houses that might not easily resell.
I support the new clause and the amendments. However, I want to make some comments on new clause 24, standing in my name and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart), which reads as follows :
' Any landlord affected by Section I hereof may apply to the Secretary of State for exemption from sale to tenants of any dwelling house or dwelling houses or any size or class of dwelling house on the grounds of shortage and on receipt of such application, the Secretary of State shall conduct such enquiry as shall be necessary and if it appears to him reasonable so to do, he shall have powers to grant the application in whole or in part.'.
The new clause gives local authorities the right to make representations to the Secretary of State if they experience housing shortages. If the Secretary of State agrees that there is a shortage of such houses, and that to sell them would cause serious problems, he will have the power to grant that application, wholly or in part. He will have discretion and will also have the final say. A local authority could put forward a case. If the Secretary of State agreed that it was valid, he could grant the application. That would take away some of the frustrations and dangers that may result from the Bill. I hope that the Secretary of State will indicate whether that proposal is acceptable.
An obstinate refusal to make a small concession to local authorities will cause confrontation. That confrontation will undoubtedly build up. If the Secretary of State is wise, he will accept that some form of flexibility should be built into the Bill in order to avoid confrontation and hard feelings. Above all, he should allow for the provision of justice and fairness within the public housing sector.

Mr. William McKelvey: I wish to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). He made an illuminating and far-reaching speech. He was prepared to confess that although he had never been blind to the problems of council tenants, he represents a constituency in which 92 per cent. of the population live in council houses. Week after week he has attended constituency surgeries, and council tenants have enlightened

him about the problems facing them. When Government's legislate, they legislate across the board, irrespective of conditions in different districts. Such legislation can hurt many people. At least my hon. Friend showed that he was aware of that.
I am opposed to the sale of council houses. Housing deficiencies still exist in Scotland. We still suffer from an acute housing crisis. If the Government are concerned about council houses and about looking after those who dwell in them, or wish to do so, they should inject a massive amount of cash into house building. I noticed that the Secretary of State nodded when the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) said that not enough proper houses had been built. We should build hundreds of thousands more houses. In Scotland, 150,000 houses are below standard. I am sure that not one of those houses will be sold. About 160,000 families are living in overcrowded conditions. They desire a better way of life and better housing. There are 100,000 people waiting to live in council houses. Perhaps there are districts in which houses are so plentiful that they can be sold, but I have not heard of any.
My experience is not limited to a constituency or group of constituencies. I have had the privilege—and it is a privilege in Scotland—of having been a council tenant for all my life, with the exception of a brief period when I was first married. I then went into the private sector and lived in a virtual warren. I paid an excessive rent for a small room, with a box room attached.
I have known the advantages and privileges of being a council house tenant, but I understand why people—when given bargains—wish to buy their houses. They are told that it is an opportunity that should be grasped, but the details are not pointed out. When they are, potential buyers are ashamed that the plum houses will be taken from Scotland's housing stock.
The Opposition and the Secretary of State may argue that houses do not disappear. Of course they do not disappear. Houses do not collapse because they are bought. However, I warn potential tenants that some houses might collapse. Scottish council houses are rapidly deteriorating because of a lack of funds with which to do the necessary repairs.
9.30 pm
The Bill removes from the pool of houses the desirable residences that people who are encapsulated in multi-storey blocks would like to have. I have had experience of multi-storey blocks as a councillor representing a ward consisting entirely of six multi-storey blocks, and there is not one problem relating to such blocks with which I am not familiar. The main concern of people with young families living in such blocks is to get out as quickly as possible. Desirable as a multi-storey block may be—and certainly it is high living to some people with a 130 ft. drop below them—it is not the best place for young children. Families with young children living in tower blocks want to transfer to semidetached areas. My constituency clinics are packed with people who plead for the opportunity to move into these areas. Young people are unable to buy houses. They certainly do not have the tenancy qualifications to buy a house of that kind, and if those houses are taken out of the pool the hopes of these people will be destroyed.
While such conditions prevail I am totally and utterly opposed to the sale of council houses, and I shall push against the idea as hard as I can in my area. My local council has already taken the decision to freeze any movement towards the sale of council houses, and I applaud it for doing so.
The trade union and Labour movement throughout the length and breadth of Scotland should be mobilised to resist, at whatever cost, the Government's policy on council houses. I say that in the knowledge that on the occasion that we pursued a similar course at Clay Cross, those who so valiantly stood out against that type of of legislation were betrayed by the trade union and Labour movement.

Mr. Alex Pollock: Given the thinness of the numbers on the Labour Benches tonight, how does the hon. Member hope to mobilise Labour opinion?

Mr. McKelvey: Considering the thinness of numbers on the Government Benches, I can confidently state that we are in a three to one majority at present. If we can mobilise our forces in Scotland

to the same degree, we shall march right over the Tories and their legislation.
The fact that the provision of houses has to be determined by market forces will rule out all those young people living in conditions from which they wish to escape. Their only hope of escape is a massive cash injection into house building, so that the proper type of houses can be built. Council house sales will diminish the number of council houses available for families on the waiting list, despite the protestations to the contrary by the Secretary of State.
Only the best houses will be sold. As I said, I was a councillor for an area with six multi-storey blocks, and no one ever came to me and said that he wished to purchase a flat in a multi-storey block. I should not wish to do so either. The share of the lift maintenance alone would put me off. I should like to see the figures of all those in multi-storey blocks, high rise flats or tenements who have applied to buy their own homes. I have looked at the list in Kilmarnock, but I could have picked the houses that would go up for sale before I saw it. Those up for sale were the most desirable. Every week in my constituency I deal with people with housing problems who want to move from the "walk-ups" and maisonettes to more desirable properties. They are aware of the dangers.

Mr. Allen Adams: Last night the Government attempted to draw a red herring across the trail by suggesting that the problems of the Health Service in Scotland could be solved by administrative tampering. They are suggesting tonight that Scotland's housing problems can be solved by selling council houses, plus a wee bit of administrative tampering. The problem tonight is similar to that of last night. We need more money for the Health Service and for public sector building in Scotland. Conservative local authorities have a poor record over the past five years. In my area only three houses have been started, which illustrates the need for a massive house building programme. In some districts there are as many as 4,000 people on the waiting list. The need is for more houses and not administrative tampering.

Mr. McKelvey: I agree.
The vast majority of working people in Scotland see council house sales not as further tampering, but, much more dangerously, as part of the Tory master plan to devastate Scotland's social services. The Tory Government want to put the boot in, especially in Scotland, because of the election results.
It is disgraceful not to see more Scottish Conservative Members in the Chamber, and none of them appears to have anything to say in support of the Bill. If they had, I suspect that they say it tongue in cheek.
Unless the Government leave themselves a loophole in the legislation, the people and authorities in Scotland will unite to attempt to destroy the legislation by force. The next Labour Government will repeal the provision to sell council houses. I hope that they will also introduce legislation to repurchase the houses that have been sold.

Mr. Maxton: I have a sense of déjà vu. Almost exactly 13 months ago I raised this topic in my maiden speech, when I opposed the sale of council houses. I spoke on the matter again on Second Reading, and spent many weeks in Committee. [Interruption.] Conservative Members are laughing. They know that in Committee I participated at length. In Committee and tonight we have won the arguments. Unfortunately, we are likely to lose the votes.
The new clauses and amendments are an attempt—possibly not a sufficiently large attempt—to alleviate the worst effects of the disastrous policy of selling council houses. For the bulk of my constituents the Government's policy is disastrous. Many of them live in large housing estates, built to alleviate the disastrous housing schemes erected during the Industrial Revolution. Mistakes were made. Most people who live in such circumstances have no wish to buy property there.
Two of my constituents wrote recently to the Secretary of State to the effect that they did not wish to buy their homes in Castlemilk but that they were seeking a transfer to a better area in Glasgow. They fear that if council houses are sold in the better areas they will lose the opportunity to move. Their objection to the Bill is that it is socially divisive and that it will create ghettos. As my hon.

Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said, such people will lose their homes.
One of my constituents, an elderly lady, has lived at Castlemilk since it was built 25 years ago. She wants a house in a more pleasant part of Glasgow. She received a letter from the housing department saying that she would have to have had a tenancy in Glasgow since 1938 to obtain a transfer. That is wrong. There are few houses in Glasgow to which such people can go.
However, people have hope. If we destroy that hope we shall create a social condition which can only cause trouble. People will be forced to use undemocratic means to oppose policies at local and national level. We must be worried about that, but that is what can happen if we create such social divisiveness.
The Government's policies will lead to a destruction of local democracy. Housing, which is the major function of local councils, will be taken away from them. Local authorities will not be able to plan for housing needs. Glasgow is a large district with a large council house population. The local authority must be able to plan for the needs of its existing citizens and to attract employment to the city. At present local authorities can build and offer local authority housing to people who move in to work.
The right to buy is not limited to sitting tenants. If a person is attracted to Glasgow because there is work there and he has had a council house tenancy in any other part of Great Britain for more than five years he can walk into a council house in Glasgow one day and make an application to buy it the following day. That destroys the ability of a local authority to plan its housing in a proper manner. It also makes the job of local authority planning at a micro level difficult.
9.45 pm
There is the problem of repairs in multi-storey properties. How does a local authority ensure that the outside of the property is painted if 10 out of 100 flats in a multi-storey block have been sold? The same problem applies to tenement blocks in Glasgow. The local authority may decide that the outside of seven out of 10 properties, the other three having been


sold, require painting. Are the three that have been sold to be left unpainted? Does the local authority insist that the three owners pay for the work? Is the painting left until the three private owners have paid their share of the cost? If the work is carried out before payment is received, there is a chance that the local authority will never see the money. Or does the authority arrange for seven properties to be painted and for three to be left unpainted?
For these reasons, I oppose the legislation. I am left with a slight doubt, however, about whether the exercise is part of a massive political fraud. We have spent months debating the legislation. At the end of the day, the number of council houses sold could be so small that the exercise will not be worthwhile. Many people, when they examine carefully the cost of buying a house in a tenement block, will have reservations. A house costing £20,000, with 50 per cent relief, will be available for £10,000. Those qualifying for full relief will probably be aged 47 or 48 and will probably have to pay off the mortgage by the age of 65. They will not, therefore, be granted the normal 25 years in which to make repayments.
It is unusual for a mortgage company to allow a person to extend the mortgage beyond the age of 65. A loan of £10,000, at present interest rates, will cost, with tax relief, £100 or more a month. If the amount has to be repaid in less than 25 years, the cost will be more than £100 a month. In addition, there will be the cost of rates, which are at present included in rents, repair bills and insurance. The cost will amount to £130 or £140 a month, as opposed to present levels of £35 to £40 including rent, rates, insurance and repairs.
When people are confronted by that prospect, they may decide not to buy. At the same time, however, the Government are applying pressure for rents to rise so fast that it will become economic for people to buy. This measure is either one of the most divisive ever introduced in Scotland or it is such a gigantic fraud that it will never be worthwhile. The Government are merely appeasing their own political consciences by introducing the Bill.

Mr. Buchan: I do not often speak in housing debates. I have not spoken on this Bill previously, for a variety of reasons. I consider that there is sufficient expertise on the Opposition Benches. I am compelled to speak, however, because the social concepts inherent in this part of the Bill are among the nastiest and most divisive introduced into Scotland for a long time. They represent an attempt to express the dogmatism of the Tory Party, and their subsidiary purpose is to help with the financing of that party. Their effect will be to create a ghetto society even among working people.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) said that a group of tenants had complained to him that only the good houses were being sold. I hope that he said to them "But of course. It is certainly not the fault of the local authority."
The third aspect that I find unpleasant and distasteful is the way in which the Government have produced policies affecting local authorities and have then attempted to shift the blame for the consequences on to the authorities. A group of tenants have complained to their local Member about the local authority selling only the better houses, but, given the nature of the Government's legislation, that is all that an authority can do.
If it is exceptional for me to speak on housing, it is equally exceptional for the borough of Kingussie to be the seat of revolution, yet it is from Badenock and Strathspey that the call has gone out to all other local authorities in Scotland to combine to object to the Government's behaviour.
The Government have succeeded in uniting Tory, Liberal, SNP and Labour councillors in opposition to their policies. They have a remarkable record—divisiveness among working people and among local authorities and the turning of people against local authorities because of the actions of the Government.
If the Government's policy is dogmatic, it is also mean and vindictive. It is mean because it will stretch to the crack of doom the housing lists that we are already facing. The sale of council houses is an attempt to save on the public sector borrowing requirement. It is not done in the interests of a housing policy, because


it is done in combination with a cutback on housing. The problem arises because of the unfairness involved in the sale of council houses, the financial background to the proposal and the cuts in building programmes.
We see in the Government's economic policies massive destructive long-term effects caused by a short-term dogmatism, and we see the same results in the housing schemes of our cities. The Government are causing great damage by their policies of cutting back on house building and reducing public expenditure. They are also producing divisiveness and tensions because of their short-term dogmatism. All that will have long-term, massive and unhappy effects on the social fabric of Scotland.
The Leader of the House has told Tory Members to realise that they are not involved in a dogmatic crusade. He could have fooled me. I see little other justification for their policy, although they do not seem to be getting anywhere near the Holy Land.
The most interesting speech in the debate was that of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). He referred to his conversion on the subject. I am an inveterate opponent of the sale of council houses, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. McKelvey). There is no justification for the policy in Scotland, where we are still short of 150,000 houses. There might be a remote case for the policy where a ghost town had been built and laid waste, though even there I could see little reason for it. There is certainly no justification for such a policy in the boroughs, towns and cities of Scotland.
My hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden has changed his view because of his own experience and not because of any doctrinaire view. He used to be a moderate on the subject. He and I have argued about it and he has said that he saw no massive matter of principle involved. Now, on the precise basis of his own experience, my hon. Friend recognises-as Conservative Members do not—the problems in constituencies such as his own, where perhaps 90 per cent. of constituents are council house tenants. He recognises the divisiveness of Government policy
Those of us who have large clinics know the problem as well. People come to see us, and when asked if they have seen their local councillor they say "No". As Members of Parliament we tell them that we have no authority, but that if they will state their case we will do what we can—but there is litttle we can do unless we see that things are going badly wrong.
What emerges from almost every other case is not simply that our constituents are without a house when they need one but that they nurse a sense of grievance if they think that others are jumping the queue. Time after time a constituent will say that he knows of people who have lived in an area for six months and have obtained a house. When the case is examined, that allegation is usually found to be true, but there is still a burning sense of grievance. If a situation is just, people on housing lists are willing to take their time, but if they believe it to be unjust they have a sense of grievance.
That is precisely what will happen as a result of Government policy. That policy will create a "them and us" situation. There will no longer be simply grievance suspicions ; there will be grievance realities, because those people—all of them living in houses that they did not choose—have always hoped to reach their particular Holy Land of obtaining a house with a little bit for garden. Those tenants wish to make that kind of change, but the Government have frozen the situation and created total immobility among our council tenants. The worst areas will be hit and the best houses will be sold. In every possible way the Government are running down what should be a marvellous asset for our people.
Various attempts have been made to deal with the situation. I think it was suggested in new clause 24 that where a case was made an inquiry should take place. The suggestion was made that we should create reserve areas in order to prevent the rapid rundown of other districts, and different solutions have been advanced in ameliorative clauses.
I believe that if the local authorities get together to use their strength to defeat and thwart the will of the Government they will be serving the cause of


democracy and will prevent the causes of social tension in their areas. Democracy itself is being attacked by the Government. There is an element of fair play and equality within democracy. There is also the other element—that people who, by statute, have been democratically elected to look after the needs

of their communities find that democracy is being thwarted by the dogmatism of this Government. They are entitled to mobilise their strength and get the support of the trade unions and the working people of this country behind them in order to turn this Government off their tracks. The sooner that happens the better.

Mr. Lambie: I support the new clauses and amendments under discussion, for the reasons put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craig-ton (Mr. Millan). They allow the Government to draw back a little from the full implications of the Bill for Scotland.
The Government may have the right to introduce such a measure in England, where they have a majority of Members of Parliament and where they won the last election without fear of contradiction, but they have no right to introduce such a Bill for Scotland where, at the last election, they obtained the votes of fewer than one in four people and where 44 Opposition Members were elected out of a total of 71 Members representing Scottish constituencies. [Interruption.] It is well seen that when one succeeds in hitting the Government on a sore spot by saying that they do not represent Scotland, Conservative Members forget their public school upbringing. They begin to roar and shout and bray, because they cannot justify their arguments.
I ask Conservative Members to remember their English public school upbringing. If they want to intervene, let them stand up and do so. They should not roar from a sedentary position from the Front Bench.

Mr. Ian Lang: Mr. Ian Lang (Galloway) rose——

Mr. Lambie: I am dealing only with the Government Front Bench now——

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour, and that the motion relating to European Community Institutions may be proceeded with, though opposed, until half-past Eleven o'clock or for one and a half hours after it has been entered upon, whichever is the later.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

TENANTS' RIGHTS ETC. (SCOTLAND) BILL

Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Lambie: The Government have no right to introduce such a Bill in Scotland. They are in a minority parliamentary position in Scotland and they represent very few district councils that are housing authorities in Scotland. At the local elections that took place on I May even the constituents of the Secretary of State for Scotland returned a Labour majority for the Kyle and Carrick district council, for the first time in its history. The Labour Party fought the election on the basis that if elected it would stop the sale of council houses.
The Secretary of State does not speak for the people of Scotland. He does not even speak for his own constituency. The district council within his constituency is now adopting the policy of stopping the sale of council houses. It is one of the authorities that will take up the fight against the Bill if it ever becomes an Act.
The Government should consider the new clause and the amendments, which are designed to introduce the element of flexibility that is needed in the Scottish context. In Scotland more than half the people remain in council houses. The Tory Government cannot get away with policies that they can get away with in England and Wales, where the minority stay in council houses. That is why the Government will build up trouble with local authorities, the trade union movement and hon. Members unless they listen to the ideas that have been advanced from the Opposition Benches.
This is an occasion that indicates that it was a disaster when we did not get a Scottish Assembly, and devolution. If we had been successful in setting up a Scottish Assembly, this situation would not have arisen and this debate would not have taken place. All our English colleagues who want us to keep quiet so that they may discuss other things would have had the Chamber to themselves tonight to discuss English or Weish matters if devolution had taken place.
It is on an occasion such as this that we recognise the different tradition of Scotland, how different traditions should


be fostered within a Scottish Assembly and how a devolvement of power should take place from the House to such an Assembly. That is why the Government should listen to the arguments advanced by my right hon. and hon. Friends.
The Government have a precedent that they should follow. In the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill the Government, in introducing major changes in the rating and valuation system in England and Wales, have excluded Scotland. The major clauses do not concern themselves with Scotland. The Government, including the Secretary of State for Scotland, have introduced in that Bill the element of flexibility for which we are asking in the Bill before us.
Why do not the Government, as they have done in the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill, accept our amendments and enter into consultation with the local authorities? They did that on rating and valuation. Why are they being dogmatic on Scottish housing, when they chose to hide behind the coat tails of the Secretary of State for the Environment on the fundamental issues of local government finance and rating and valuation?
The Government have the answer. On many occasions when the local government Bill was considered in Committee I put the case to my English colleagues and Government Back Benchers that the Government and the Secretary of State for Scotland were being fair to the Scottish ratepayers and local authorities by not following blindly the policy that the arrogant Secretary of State for the Environment was carrying out in England and Wales. The Minister who led the Government team in Committee came to me privately and warned me that I was antagonising them too much. He said "If you do not watch what you are doing, you will get clauses to cover Scotland as well as England and Wales."

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must not discuss numerous other Bills. The hon. Gentleman is straying somewhat.

Mr. Lambie: It is good and reasonable to show a precedent at this moment, when the Government are not carrying out the policy that we are demanding and that is contained in the new clauses and amendments that we are now discussing.

That is why I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will listen to the Minister with responsibility for industry in Scotland. He should widen his experience in the short time available before we take the decision. The Government should allow this measure, which provides for the selling off of council houses in Scotland, to be carried not by the votes of the Scottish Members of Parliament, the Scottish district councils and the people of Scotland, but by the votes of English and Weish Members of Parliament, who are outside waiting to come in to vote down Scottish housing and vote in support of the sale of council houses in Scotland.

Mr. Ernie Ross :: Listening to the debate, I think it would be wrong if I did not at least make the position of my party in Dundee quite clear, if it is not already clear to the Government. We said unequivocally that we would not sell council houses. We do not intend to sell council houses, whatever the cost. I do not expect my my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) to agree with me on this point. We shall certainly say that, morally, we campaigned and won an election. Having gained, during that election, an overwhelming majority from the people in Dundee on a campaign not to sell council houses, we do not intend to sell them.
We are taking part in the discussions on a Bill that can be best summed up as the steal of the century. That is exactly what the Bill means. It offers a bargain to those who are lucky enough to be sitting in the best houses, but it is an absolute disaster for the 30,000 tenants who would eventually move to those houses if they were not sold off.
The plan evolved by the local Tories would mean that thousands of tenants in Dundee would have to remain in their present houses without a chance of moving to better houses in a better area. It would mean that the city's best semidetached houses would be sold off at half price to those lucky enough to be living in them at the time. The Tories went further. They decided that anyone, at any stage, even if he moved in the day before yesterday, could buy his house at 50 per cent. of its cost. We find that despicable and unacceptable.
We believe that the existing houses, which were built by successive Labour


administrations in Dundee, were handed down in trust by previous generations. We in Dundee will fight to the last to preserve them within our pool of council houses. The Tory plan would ensue that rents in the city would be forced up because of the loss of the rent pooling arrangement. We shall be asking the people in Dundee to go along with us. They gave us their overwhelming support in their election on 1 May and we shall work to carry out our promise.
The current arrangements for the sale of council houses in the Bill have been developed as part of a philosophy to reduce the role of the State in housing and to increase private expenditure on housing. Those on the Government Benches who advocate sales argue that a greater proportion of housing resources should be controlled and financed through private market mechanisms that ration houses according to income, occupation and rating. As Socialists, we must reject these values. The public sector, on the other hand, gives pecedence to need, household size, structure and housing circumstances. The public sector provides housing at standards that the majority of its tenants could not secure in the private market.
Council housing challenges the profit system. Because of this, the Tories and their property-owning groupings—solicitors, estate agents, architects and financiers—are continually seeking ways of undermining council housing. It was not by accident that the Tories created the illusion of Britain being a property-owning democracy. The Labour Party's programme sees housing based on need with siting, type, allocation and rent levels democratically decided. The Tory alternative sees housing based on the ability to bear the burden of 25 or 30 years of wildly fluctuating interest charges and speculative land and building prices, and for those unable to compete there is the council house dormitory estate, of which we have our own in Dundee. There is no rational doubt about what system gives the most hope to the vast majority of people.
I shall support the new clause and the amendments despite the fact that I do not particularly agree with them. They seek to ameliorate a Bill which, by its very nature, cannot be amended. The Bill must and can only be repealed. It

will require more than this Bill to ensure that any council houses are sold in Dundee.

The Secretary for State for Scotland (Mr. George Younger): If the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) will forgive me, I shall not go on to the subject of Dundee now. There is a later new clause on which it might be appropriate to mention that matter. I hope that the hon. Member will not think me discourteous.
I was extremely flattered to hear that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) had been defending me so nobly in Committee on the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill. I cannot think of anyone who could do it better. As usual and as always, I am grateful to him.
I think that the hon. Gentleman's reasoning was confused. It sounded as though he should be away joining our old friend Jim Sillars, who has made his decision. If the logic of what the hon. Gentleman said meant anything it was that the previous Labour Government had no mandate to nationalise anything or to take any Socialist measures in England. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. It must be one way or the other. Perhaps he will think about that.
I should like to comment on the more general matters that have taken up much of the debate before getting on to the new clause. Somebody from outside who did not know all this would think from the debate that the present system of council housing operating in Scotland for more than half the population was perfect, marvellous, easy to run, satisfying to customers and tremendously easy and flexible in regard to all the arrangements.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Younger: I think that I had better get into my speech.

Mr. Hughes: On this point.

Mr. Younger: I had better get on with my speech.

Mr. Hughes: Mr. Hughes rose——

Mr. Younger: I find from experience that if I give way every two minutes to


everybody who wants to get in, it breaks up the continuity of what I want to say. I do not want to be discourteous. I always enjoy the hon. Gentleman's interventions, but perhaps he will let me get on.
Despite the fact that we had the impression created that everything was perfect, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) pointed out that people in our cities—certainly in Glasgow—have been waiting for many years in council houses allocated to them by bureaucrats years ago with little prospect of moving to houses that they would prefer elsewhere. What a system to be proud of!
We are trying to inject a little flexibility into a system that is so rigid that it forces that sort of fate on many thousands of our constituents. No hon. Member on either side of the House who has ever done constituency work will deny that there is a great deal of heart-searching, dissatisfaction and discontent among people in Scotland about the rigidity of the council house system as it has been practised in past years. That is the background.
10.15 pm
The second impression that could be gained by somebody from outside who is listening to the debate is that the Government are about to force all tenants to buy their council houses tomorrow morning at an exhorbitant price. That is an absolute parody of what is involved. We are giving council tenants the right to buy the homes in which they live, if they wish to do so. If the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) was right when he said that no one would be able to afford to do that, that it was not a good deal, that it was a con, and that people should not wish to buy their houses, so be it. No one who does not think that it is a good deal needs to buy his house. Nobody should ask him to do so, and nobody will ask him. It is a question of giving a right to people who have been allocated a council house, in their fair turn, by the local authority under the rules that Opposition Members think are so marvellous. They are being given the right to buy their homes.

Mr. O'Neill: If a council tenant is being given the right to buy his home, why is that right not being extended to private sector property?

Mr. Younger: The private sector properties were not built with public money.

Mr. Maxton: Mr. Maxton rose——

Mr. Younger: I think that I should continue. We are injecting a limited and rather small additional element of flexibility into a system that is so rigid that many find it highly unsatisfactory. It would be a little more convincing to hear Opposition Members pleading that all that they are asking for is a little modification or flexibility in a system that they do not like, but realise will be introduced. It would be more convincing to hear that argument if Labour-controlled authorities had shown the slightest keenness over the past five years, when this has been an issue, to meet the genuine aspirations of some tenants to own their own homes and to buy their council houses.
If it is the case that only certain council houses can be sold under the rather qualified scheme suggested by the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) and if it is the case that the Labour Party is asking only for some control and the ability to ensure that certain houses cannot be sold, that could have been practised during the years when the Labour Party were in office. In the Green Paper produced by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) lip service was paid to the fact that it was quite acceptable for council houses to be sold. I welcomed that Green Paper. In spite of that, the definite, deliberate and continuing policy that was pursued in practice was that the previous Labour Administration refused consent for the sale of council houses all over Britain, and almost all the time. There were few exceptions to that. No one can deny it.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I do not mind some members of my Party misrepresenting the Green Paper, but I object to the Secretary of State for Scotland's doing so. We did not advocate the sale of council houses. We gave limited permission in accordance with a conference resolution, and we gave it within the context of the housing plan.

Mr. Younger: That is true. However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not disagree with me when I say that the Green Paper recognised that there was a


case for selling some council houses. That was all that I was saying. Had the spirit behind the new clauses been genuine, and had Labour Members wanted a certain derogation so that there would be control over the matter, that could have been practised. In fact, it was not, because the number of houses that were allowed to be sold was absolutely minute. Yet during all those years literally thousands of Scots wished to have the right to buy the homes in which they lived. Every survey that had been taken, in every possible way in which one could take it, demonstrated that fact. The Labour Party cannot argue about that.
Before dealing with the new clauses and amendments, I want to reinforce the facts about the policy. First, it has all to do with giving to a person who has already been allocated a house a right to buy that house if he so wishes. Therefore, I start from the position—this is different from the position adopted by Labour Members—of wanting to do my best to ensure that the right that we are giving is spread as widely as possible. It would be my wish, if it were possible, that every public sector tenant everywhere should have that right, because if one is giving rights, I feel that one should try to give them to everyone.
From what has been said by Labour Members, it is fair to say that they start from a quite different position. Their argument is that the best system of running housing is to have it centralised under the local authority and to have the local authority bureaucrats deciding where the houses are to be built and how and to whom they are to be allocated. Some Labour Members are honest enough to nod their heads. That is what they believe. It is a respectable point of view, although I think that it is absolutely wrong. Those are the two philosophies. We Conservatives are determined to try to give every tenant the right to buy his home if he wants to. Labour Members wish to perpetuate the bureaucratic system run by local authorities, which allocate houses to everyone.
Another thing that must be said is central to everything that has been argued by every Labour Member who has spoken. I refer to the assumption that having got a proposal to give people the right to buy their houses it follows, as

night follows day that every house that is sold has disappeared from the system, cannot be used, is not helping a family, and is generally a write-off. What an absurd proposition.
Let us consider for a moment what happens. A family already allocated a home decides that it would like to buy it. It does so only if it wishes. Having bought it, that family continues to live in it. It still occupies it, but it is paying a mortgage and building up some savings in the process, instead of paying rent for ever more—rent that increases every year, whether there is a Labour Government or a Conservative Government.
It is not the case that at the moment when that family is given the right to buy its home, if it wishes, the home disappears because it is still housing a family, but let us suppose that after five years, when the transitional period has ended, the family decides to sell the house. Let us suppose that it is sold to a different family. That family also needs housing, and if it does not get a house in that way it will go on to the housing waiting list and the local authority will be responsible for housing it.
The only difference produced by this policy is that the family, or one replacing it, still lives in the house. Under the Labour Party system it will pay rent for ever more, whereas under our proposals it will have the chance of owning its own home. The Labour Party is not keen to give people a chance to own their own home in that way, and the Conservative Party is keen to give people that chance. That is the difference. That is why we believe that we are right to take these measures, and why we believe that this right should be spread to everyone.
As the right hon. Member for Craigton fairly said, these new clauses are not intended to change the principle of the Bill ; they are intended to impose some form of restriction on the sale that would be permitted in order to achieve—as the right hon. Gentleman would see it—some control by the Secretary of State of the day. One of the new clauses seeks to restrict by type of house, and the other seeks to restrict by area. Both those restrictions are unacceptable to me, in that they take away from some people the rights that should be available to all people, if possible.
Secondly, the new clauses are openended. Under the scheme of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) the housing plan would have been a sort of yardstick whereby a restriction could be brought in that it would require the 25 per cent. figure. It would be possible for any authority that wished to frustrate the matter to build up a huge alleged list of houses that needed to be built, and it would be easy to produce 25 per cent. that would not be started in the current year. That would be too open-ended, and I cannot agree to it.
The same applies to the schemes put forward by the hon. Member for Dundee, West and others. They are wide open to frustration by an authority—of which there are apparently plenty—that did not wish to operate the policy and that wished to find any loophole for frustrating it.
The right hon. Member for Craigton said much about multi-storey dwellings. It was a fair point to discuss, and it was not discussed in Committee. I accept that difficulties can arise over multi-storey flats in multi-ownership, but I do not think that a case can be made—nor was a case made—for those problems being insurmountable. All the evidence, not merely in this country but all over the world, is that this is a normal situation in every city. In almost every other city there are huge apartment blocks and tower blocks, where different flats are ownd by different people, and different houses and parts of houses are owned by different people.
The hon. Member for Garscadden, who is a lawyer, will know that there are well-established procedures for dealing with repairs, multi-ownership, and so on. I do not think that the right hon. Member for Craigton was wrong in raising the matter, or for canvassing the problem, but he was wrong to suggest that it was unusual and insoluble. In this country and in every other part of the Western world it is standard practice in every city. No one can deny that, and no one can say that it is impossible.
I have sympathy with the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) who raised the question of excluding listed buildings. No hon. Member would wish any harm to come to the standard or upkeep of listed buildings. The hon.

Gentleman gave examples of such buildings in Jedburgh. There is no evidence that the considerable number of listed buildings in private ownership are worse looked after than the few in public ownership. I can give examples in both cases of good looking after and not-so-good looking after of such buildings. That alone is not a reason for excluding them. Indeed, some people would say that ownership of such listed buildings would probably lead people who wished to buy them to look after them extremely effectively.
There is also a safeguard, in that there are laws that prevent anything being done to cause the deterioration of listed buildings. It would also be open to the local authority, in selling such houses, to impose conditions of sale that would prevent their being spoiled or defaced in any way. The planning authority has control over the exterior of listed buildings, and it can prevent that.

Mr. David Steel: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) for standing in for me while I was out of the Chamber. I think that my hon. Friend gave figures to show that in the case of a newly constructed scheme, which has won conservation awards, the costs are double the district valuer's present estimate. In that scheme the local authority has already declined to sell the shops to occupiers. It has power to do that, but it has no power to prevent the fragmentation of the scheme in terms of the houses. It seems to me that this matter needs to be looked at again.

Mr. Younger: I shall certainly be glad to look at that point. It is well worth examining this matter to make sure that there is nothing detrimental to the upkeep of listed buildings. I think that we all take a responsible view of that matter.
The debate has been valuable. We have gone over much of the ground that in general has been gone over in the Bill. I think that the difference between the two sides of the House is one not of detail but of principle. We approach this problem from two different points of view. As I have said, we on the Government side feel that everyone possible should have the right to own his own home if


he can, and this is the only way that is put forward for him to do it. Opposition Members believe that the presumption should always be that the maximum number of people should be put into the public housing system and allocated their homes, and should be jolly thankful to be given them, and that is that.
That is not our philosophy. That is why I reject the general opposition to this proposal. I also reject the new clause and amendments, because all of them would interfere with the basic right of as many council tenants as possible to have this element of choice if they want it. That is the reason why the new clause and amendments are not acceptable. That is why I advise the House to support Government amendment No. 34 and to oppose the new clauses.

Mr. Millan: The right hon. Gentleman's description of Labour policy is such a travesty that I shall not even dignify it by answering the points that he has made. He knows that it is a travesty. I have never heard such a pathetic attempt to rebut new clauses as that to which we have just listened. If that is the standard that he brings to these debates, we are extremely thankful that he was not a member of the Committee.
The right hon. Gentleman has made no attempt to deal with the serious points made by a number of my hon. Friends and hon. Members of the other parties on the Opposition Benches, as well as by myself, on the new clauses. The Government have started off on the basis that they will concede nothing in the way of flexibility in these arrangements, however reasonable the case put up and however difficult the circumstances that are likely to arise if the Government maintain the Bill's present provisions.

There is no point in the right hon. Gentleman saying that he will consider the question of historic buildings, and the rest. I do not suppose for one moment that anything will be done about that important but comparatively detailed matter before the Bill reaches the statute book. The right hon. Gentleman has not dealt with the problems of multistorey buildings and many other specific problems that were drawn to the Government's attention in Committee. What he has done, quite deliberately, is to decide now to impose an inflexible system on local government in Scotland. He will compel Scottish local authorities to sell houses against their wishes, regardless of the local circumstances and regardless of the interests of the people living in the communities concerned.

As I said in my opening remarks, the right hon. Gentleman will produce considerable bitterness among local authorities, and confrontation with them. He is extremely unwise to adopt this attitude. It is obvious that nothing that we say in this debate on Report will change the Government's determination on this matter.

The right hon. Gentleman will live to regret the day that he turned down this last opportunity to introduce even the most minimal and commonsense element of flexibility into the Bill. I can only advise my hon. Friends, with considerable anger but also considerable regret, because of the damage that this legislation will do to housing in Scotland, to vote for the new clause. I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that when we reach amendment No. 39 you will allow us a separate vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time :—

The House divided : Ayes 218, Noes 277.

Division No. 352]
AYES
[10.34 pm


Abse, Leo
Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Adams, Allen
Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)


Allaun, Frank
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)
Cohen, Stanley


Anderson, Donald
Bradley, Tom
Coleman, Donald


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Bray, Dr Jeremy
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Conlan, Bernard


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)
Cook, Robin F.


Ashton, Joe
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)
Cowans, Harry


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Buchan, Norman
Cox, Tom (Wandsworth, Tooting)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)
Crowthsr, J. S.


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Campbell, lan
Cryer, Bob


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Campbell-Savours, Dale
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Beith, A. J.
Cant, R. B.
Cunningham, George (Islington S)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)


Bidwell, Sydney
Cartwright, John
Dalyell, Tarn




Davidson, Arthur
Janner, Hon Greville
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Robertson, George


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
John, Brynmor
Rodgers, Rt Hon William


Davis, Clinton, (Hackney Central)
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Rooker, J. W.


Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Johnson, Walter (Derby South)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Deakins, Erie
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Rowlands, Ted


Dewar, Donald
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)
Ryman, John


Dixon, Donald
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Sandelson, Neville


Dobson, Frank
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Sever, John


Dormant), Jack
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Sheerman, Barry


Douglas, Dick
Kilfedder, James A.
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Kilroy-Sllk, Robert
Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)


Dubs, Alfred
Lambie, David
Short, Mrs Renée


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lamborn, Harry
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)
Leadbitter, Ted
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Dunnett, Jack
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)
Silverman, Julius


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Skinner, Dennis


Eastham, Ken
Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)


Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Snape, Peter


English, Michael
Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)
Soley, Clive


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Spearing, Nigel


Evans, John (Newton)
McCartney, Hugh
Springs, Leslie


Ewlng, Harry
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Steel, Rt Hon David


Field, Frank
McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)


Fitch, Alan
McKelvey, William
Stott, Roger


Flannery, Martin
Maclennan, Robert
Strang, Gavin


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Magee, Bryan
Straw, Jack


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Mark", Kenneth
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Forrester, John
Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)


Foster, Derek
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Foulkes, George
Maxton, John
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East)


Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Meacher, Michael
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Tilley, John


George, Bruce
Miller, Dr M. S. (Eas Kilbride)
Tinn, James


Ginsburg, David
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Torney, Tom


Graham, Ted
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, lichen)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)


Grant, John (Islington C)
Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)
Watkins, David


Grimond, Rt Kon J.
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Weetch, Ken


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Movie, Rt Hon Roland
Wellbeloved, James


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Newens, Stanley
Weish, Michael


Hardy, Peter
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
While, Frank R.(Bury & Radcliffe)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Ogden, Eric
While, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
O'Halloran, Michael
Whitehead, Phillip


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
O'Neill, Martin
Whitlock, William


Haynes, Frank
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Wigley, Dafydd


Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)
Palmer, Arthur
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)
Park, George
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Home Robertson, John
Parry, Robert
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)


Homewood, William
Pavitt, Laurie
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Hooley, Frank
Penhaligon, David
Winnlck, David


Horam, John
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Woodall, Alec


Howell, Rt Hon Den's (B'ham, Sm H)
Prescott, John
Woolmer, Kenneth


Howells, Geraint
Race, Reg
Young, David (Bolton East)


Huckfield, Lea
Radice, Giles



Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)
I ELLERS FOR THE AYES :


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Mr. Joseph Dean and


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)
Mr. George Morton.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Churchill, W. S.


Aitken, Jonathan
Braine, Sir Bernard
Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)


Alexander, Richard
Bright, Graham
Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)


Amery, fit Hon Julian
Brinton, Tim
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Arnold, Tom
Brittan, Leon
Clegg, Sir Walter


Aspinwall, Jack
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Cockeram, Eric


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Brooke, Hon Peter
Colvin, Michael


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Brown, Michael (Brlgg & Sc'thorpe)
Cope, John


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Browne, John (Winchester)
Cormack, Patrick


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Bruce-Gardyne, John
Corrie, John


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Buck, Antony
Costain, A. P.


Banks, Robert
Budgen, Nick
Cranborne, Viscount


Bell, Sir Ronald
Bulmer, Esmond
Critchley, Julian


Bendall, Vivian
Burden, F. A.
Dean, Paul (North Somerset)


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Butcher, John
Dickens, Geoffrey


Best, Keith
Butler, Hon Adam
Dorrell, Stephen


Bevan, David Gilroy
Cadbury, Jocelyn
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bitten, Rt Hon John
Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Dover, Denshore


Biggs-Davison, John
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Blackburn, John
Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)


Body, Richard
Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Durant, Tony


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Channon, Paul
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Chapman, Sydney
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)







Eggar, Timothy
Lee, John
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Elliott, Sir William
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Ridsdale, Julian


Emery, Peter
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Fairgrieve, Russell
Loveridge, John
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Lyell, Nicholas
Robinson, Peter (Belfast East)


Farr, John
McCrindle, Robert
Rossl, Hugh


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Macfarlane, Nell
Royle, Sir Anthony


Finsberg, Geoffrey
MacGregor, John
Seinsbury, Hon Timothy


Fisher, Sir Nigel
MacKay, John (Argyll)
Scott, Nicholas


Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Fookes, Miss Janet
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
McQuarrie, Albert
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Fox, Marcus
Madel, David
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)
Major, John
Silvester Fred


Fry, Peter
Marland, Paul
Sims, Roger


Gardner, Edward (South Fylde")
Marlow, Tony
Skeel, T. H. H.


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Marten, Nell (Banbury)
Smith, Dudley (War. and Leam'ton)


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Mates, Michael
Speed, Keith


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mather, Carol
Spence, John


Goodhew, Victor Goodlad, Alastair
Maude, Rt Hon Angus Mawby, Ray
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire) Squire, Robin


Gow, Ian
Mawhlnney, Dr Brian
Stanbrook, Ivor


Gower, Sir Raymond
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stanley, John


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Mayhew, Patrick
Steen, Anthony


Gray, Hamish
Mellor, David
Stevens, Martin


Greenway, Harry
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Grieve, Percy
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)
Mills, lain (Menriden)
Stokes, John


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Grist, Ian
Miscampbell, Norman



Grylis, Michael
Moata, Roger
Tapsell, Peter


Gummer, John Selwyn
Monro, Hector
Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&Ew'll)
Montgomery, Fergus
Tebbit, Norman


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sin)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Hampson, Dr Keith
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)


Hannam, John
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Thompson, Donald


Haseihurst, Alan
Mudd, David
Thorne, Nell (Ilford South)


Hastings, Stephen
Murphy, Christopher
Thornton, Malcolm


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Myles, David
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)


Hawkins, Paul
Neale, Gerrard
Trippier, David


Hawksley, Warren
Needham, Richard
Trouer, Neville


Hayhoe, Barney
Nelson, Anthony
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Heddle, John
Neubert, Michael
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Henderson, Barry
Newton, Tony
Viggers, Peter


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Nott, Rt Hon John
Waddington, David


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Onslow, Cranley
Wakeham, John


Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham
Waldegrave, Hon William


Hooson, Tom
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)
Walker, Bill (Perth & Perthshire)


Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)
Parkinson, Cecil
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Parris, Mathew
Waller, Gary


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Walters, Dennis


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Patten, John (Oxford)
Ward, John


Hurd, Hon Douglas
Pattle, Geoffrey
Warren, Kennth


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Pawsey, James
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage)


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Pink, R. Bonner
Wheeler, John


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Pollock, Alexander
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Porter, George
Whitney, Raymond


Kershaw, Anthony
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Wickenden, Keith


Kimball, Marcus
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Wiggin, Jerry


King, Rt Hon Tom
Prior, Rt Hon James
Wilkinson, John


Knight, Mrs Jill
Proctor, K. Harvey
Winterton, Nicholas


Knox, David
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Wolfson, Mark


Lamont, Norman
Raison, Timothy
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Lang, Ian
Rathbone, Tim
Younger, Rt Hon George


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)



Latham, Michael
Rees-Davies, W. R.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES :


Lawrence, Ivan
Renton, Tim
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Lawson, Nigel
Rhodes James, Robert
Mr Anthony Berry.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 22

REPEAL OF SECTION 10A(3) OF HOUSING (SCOTLAND) ACT 1974

' Section 10A(3) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1974 is hereby repealed.'—[Mr. Cook.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Cook: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The clause repeats the terms of an amendment that I moved when we considered the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill in 1978. As some hon. Members are present who did not sit on the Committee, including the Minister with responsibility for housing, I


may be forgiven for giving some background to the nature of the new clause and the amendment, that I moved two years ago, and what it would achieve.
In the course of the passage of the 1978 Act, the previous Labour Government created a new repairs grant that was available to owners of property, not necessarily within a housing action area, in order to assist them to carry out improvements to their property. It was aimed at repairs that are desperately required, in tenemental areas, to stairs, roofs and, where necessary, sound proofing. There is enough background noise in the Chamber at the moment to merit some sound proofing here.
The trouble is that the 1978 Act, as well as intending the repairs grant to be an incentive to encourage owners to carry out repairs, particularly to the mutual parts of the property, applied a means test for eligibility for the grant. This is objectionable, because there arises a confusion of two separate principles. The grant attempts to provide an incentive to owners to carry out repairs while carrying out an income support function in combating the hardship that would arise among owners faced with carrying out repairs without assistance from public funds.
That confusion of purpose is undesirable. It defeats the object of the whole exercise. If the object is to provide an incentive to owners to carry out repairs, the incentive should be provided equally to all owners irrespective of whether they can satisfy a test of hardship. The terms of the statute refer to hardship. They do not seek simply to exclude those who are comfortably off and can afford to carry out the repairs.
The grants are confined solely to the small number of owners who can establish that they are unable to pay the bill without hardship. The trouble is that the provision has frustrated the purpose of the grants to provide an incentive and has not provided the stimulus for repair of tenement areas that is desperately required. In providing for the test of hardship, the Government, at the time, were short-sighted. If the Government resist this amendment they will be equally short-sighted. In the longer run, there will be real savings to the public purse if the present owners of tenement areas

can be persuaded to carry out reasonable maintenance.
Improvement grants were created in order to encourage owners to improve their property so that the property did not decay into a slum that would have to be cleared with the result that the owners would be rehoused at far greater expense to the public purse than arises from the provision of improvement grants as an incentive to the owners to avoid that situation. In five or six years' experience of operating the housing action areas it has become clear that the threat to tenemental areas arises not so much from lack of internal approvals as from the crumbling structure of the tenements and faults in the drains and the roofs, which threaten the long-term stability of the tenements.
It is anomalous that improvement grants should continue to be made available for internal improvements that are not subject to means test—it is appreciated that such a test would frustrate the incentive—although a grant is not provided for repairs to the mutual parts, essential to the stability of the building, without a means test.
Other difficulties have flowed from a means test in a repair grant intended to provide an incentive. The first is that the test of hardship is left to be defined by the local authority. That is unsatisfactory, and amounts to passing the buck of a decision to the local authority. It is particularly unsatisfactory at a time when housing authorities are no longer the social work authorities and have no staff or expertise to make a judgment on what is hardship and what is the right level of income support.
More seriously, it is difficult for a local authority to apply the test of hardship in connection with a grant that relates to repairs that may stretch over one or two years. It is comparatively easy to apply a test of hardship in assessing income for the purposes of supplementary benefit, rent allowances or rebates, because those calculations are done on a week-to-week basis, depending on the income of the claimant in the week of application. But with repair grants, the owner applies for a grant, receives approval, and then sets out on the lengthy business of obtaining contractors, persuading them to start work, getting the work completed satisfactorily, having it inspected by the local authority and persuading the authority to


pay the bill. That process can take anything up to two years.

Mr. McQuarrie: Rubbish.

Mr. Cook: It is not rubbish. I have considerable experience of the difficulties involved.

Mr. McQuarrie: So have I.

Mr. Cook: I do not deny that the hon. Gentleman has considerable experience. I merely assert that I have considerable experience of the problems of owners in tenement areas who seek to get repairs carried out. I shall refer later to a case that has been going on for three years, where the work has still not yet started.
The process can take two years and at the end the income of the owner can be radically different from his income when he started on the process two years earlier. In Edinburgh there have been cases of undergraduates who owned properties in tenemental areas applying for repair and improvement grants while they were students but who, when the point of payment came round, had qualified and were earning reasonable salaries. That poses for the local authority problems that do not arise in any other test of means applied for income support functions.
A number of practical problems have arisen from the conflation of the purposes of a repairs grant as an incentive for repairs to be carried out and as an income support because it is means tested. That is why I sought to delete the provision from the repairs grant proposed by the Labour Government two years ago. The attempt commanded support that went wider than merely the Labour Benches. A letter from COSLA to all members of the Committee indicated that it supported the deletion of the test of means
on the grounds that the purpose of a repairs grant should be to preserve the property and that the financial position of the applicant should not be relevant in considering an application for grant.
The hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), as he is in his new translation, was the Opposition spokesman on the Committee. He said :
it worries me that there is no standard grant for repairs. There is a standard grant for improvements which everyone, irrespective of income, can get, and that undoubtedly encourages people to apply for improvement grants and to undertake improvements. I think that there is a case for having a modest standard

repair grant which would be available to everyone. That would undoubtedly result in a greater incentive to carry out repairs."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee. 2 February 1978 ; c. 237.]
Of course, it is a favourite tease of hon. Members to produce quotations made by Opposition spokesmen that they are not carrying out in government, but there is considerable force in the views expressed by the hon. Member for Southend, East.
We can now see what has happened in the two years since we deliberated in that Committee. We must accept that the uptake of the repairs grant has been appalling. If hon. Members ask their local directors of housing and directors of building control they will receive the almost unanimous advice that the uptake of the repairs grant has been derisory. The simple reason is that the grant applies only to those who satisfy the test of hardship. In any tenement that is likely to apply to only two or three of the owners. Those owners can obtain a grant to carry out repairs, and may be willing, indeed enthusiastic, to do so, but they will be unable to persuade other owners in the tenement, who will get no grant, to carry out repairs.
As a result, few grants have been made under the repairs grant provision and, therefore, the state of the roofs, the stair wells and the drains of the tenements in our inner urban areas is, arguably, worse than it was two years ago when we made this provision.
11 pm
The longer we delay providing proper, reasonable provision from the public purse to encourage investment in the repair and maintenance of those buildings the faster they will continue to crumble. We are laying up for ourselves a substantial bill in the future.
I accept that if my amendment were carried there would be a modest increase in public expenditure. It would not be that much, because one of the problems facing directors of building control at present is the enormous growth of bad debts. At the end of the day it is those directors who have to authorise the carrying out of the essential roof repairs in default of the owners, and they frequently find it very difficult to recoup the expense.
The cost to the public purse would not be a gross cost. It could be set against the cost at present incurred by


the inability to recover bad debts. In the longer run any public expenditure that we undertake in this context will be more than recouped in the investment that it will represent in giving a longer life to those tenement areas. If we fail to take that step now I must warn the House, from what I see in my constituency every weekend, that it is only a matter of time before we are faced with another major spasm of demolition such as we faced in the 1960s. That will represent a far greater cost to the public purse than the modest change that I am now proposing in order to forestall that situation.

Mr. Rifkind: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the repair and maintenance of property must continue primarily to be the responsibility of the owner of the property. That is not a particularly radical proposition, but I am sure that it will have the agreement of the whole House. The hon. Gentleman will also accept that the effect of his amendment, if it were to be approved, would remove any question whether the applicant for a grant requires financial help or whether he could carry out the necessary work without the grant.
I accept that there are individual cases where the view on the question whether hardship would be caused if a grant were not made might be debatable and doubtful. I am happy to look at the general question that the hon. Gentleman has raised—whether the way in which the grant is implemented in various parts of Scotland could be improved, and where there are particular difficulties, but I cannot accept his amendment, because that would make the grant available irrespective of the needs of the applicant. I shall consider the specific points raised to see whether the application of the system can be improved.

Mr. Cook: I put it to the Minister that his Department encourages local authorities to disburse improvement grants daily that are not in any way means tested. We accept that as a necessary price in order to provide the incentive to owners to improve their property.
There is no test of income for the 50 per cent. improvement grant. I complain about the anomalous position that the test of income is applied to the repairs

grant, which is copied from the same provisions as those for the improvement grant. I find that unsatisfactory. It is not a matter of some local authorities interpreting the provisions in an unduly harsh way. By and large, local authorities try to make a go of it, but as it stands the provision is nonsensical.
The Minister said that the responsibility for maintenance must primarily be that of the owner, and that this measure is intended to assist only those who experience hardship. But those who may suffer hardship, pass the test, apply for the grant and are pronounced to be eligible for it, find that other owners who are not eligible will not join in the repair work. Thus, nobody gets the grant. That is why there has been such a meagre uptake.
If the Minister wishes to rescue this repairs grant provision from remaining other than a dead letter in housing law he will have seriously to amend it. He should consider the matter soon and look with favour upon the issue being raised in another place. One of our colleagues there might be motivated to raise the matter. By the time that the issue is raised in another place the Government may have given more thought to the matter, reviewed the experience of the past two years and come to the same conclusion that has already been reached by every local authority administering it, which is that, as it stands, the provision is profoundly unsatisfactory.

Mr. Millan: Some of the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) are valid, but basically I accept what the Minister said. There is a difficulty in saying that the repairs grant should be paid regardless of the means of the owner. The hon. Gentleman spoke of the possibility of a standard grant of a fairly modest amount. That possibility is worth considering. If the Minister is not able to go the whole way I hope that he will give further thought to a standard grant of the sort that he indicated. It would not be an open-ended commitment, and the public expenditure involved would be limited. It might lubricate the machinery in certain instances.

Mr. Rifkind: There may be a case for arguing that the availability of the improvement grant, irrespective of need, is


itself an anomaly. That is no argument for extending the anomaly as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) urges. I have indicated that I am happy to consider the hon. Gentleman's argument and the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan). I see no case for removing the basis of need as the criterion on which the grant is paid. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman recognises some strength in that position.

Mr. Cook: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 25

INDEMNITY OF TENANTS

Where prior to this Act a landlord has invited a public sector tenant to purchase the dwelling house of which he is tenant and where the tenant has made a formal application to purchase the dwelling house and paid any fees or expenses solicited by the landlord and where the landlord has unilaterally revoked the intended sale before a contract has been entered into, the landlord shall repay to the tenant any fees or expenses outlaid by the tenant to the landlord and shall indemnify the tenant against any reasonable loan, survey and legal expenses incurred by the tenant in relation to the revoked purchase.'.—[Mr. Gordon Wilson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The clause raises an issue of principle for tenants who have been caught and driven under by the political steamroller or involved in personal loss for reasons for which they are not at fault.
I shall read the clause because it sets out a sequence of events that has taken place. I suggest that the terms of the clause will almost meet with agreement on that ground alone. It states :
Where prior to this Act a landlord has invited a public sector tenant to purchase the dwelling house of which he is tenant and where the tenant has made a formal application to purchase the dwelling house and paid any fees or expenses solicited by the landlord and where the landlord has unilaterally revoked the intended sale before a contract has been entered into, the landlord shall repay to the tenant any fees or expenses outlaid by the tenant to the landlord and shall indemnify the tenant against any reasonable loan, survey and legal expenses incurred by the tenant in relation to the revoked purchase.
The background to the clause is that prior to the recent local elections certain

local authorities approached their tenants and offered to sell houses which were occupied by the tenants to the tenants. On the strength of that they issued application forms to the tenants who came forward. In some instances they invited tenants to pay deposits to indicate a serious interest. In other instances they were invited to pay loan fees or survey fees where a valuation was required. Where a contract or missive of purchase was entered into, that was the end of the matter. There was a legal contract that could be enforceable.
After the local elections there was a change of policy in at least one local authority. I am content to argue the issue as much in general terms as in the particular. However, the Dundee district council revoked the intended sales by a political decision. No one can doubt that as the elected local authority it was entitled to do so. However, I question whether it was correct in taking the action that it did.
A corporate entity such as a local authority is a continuing body, a corporation, although it may change hands in political terms. If that body has encouraged people to enter into intended sales of houses under a previous management, it should not apply its change of policy to those who have been caught up with the previous administration. The events in Dundee, which were repeated in other areas, and the change of policy became retrospective.
There could be argument whether the original policy should have been maintained for those tenants who entered into, or who intended to enter into, agreements with the local authority. That is an irrelevant consideration, for two reasons. First, one or more of the tenants in Dundee sought legal advice whether there might be some way in which they could enforce their rights in the courts. One such tenant may be taking a case to court. Secondly, if the Bill becomes law, as appears to be the case, and if there are no flaws in it, the same tenants may apply to the local authority to purchase then-houses under clause 1. If they do that, the same tenants will be forced to pay certain expenses twice.
I assume—I think that it is correct—that Dundee district council will agree, in the particular case that I mentioned, to refund the deposit that was accepted.


Perhaps it will be able to refund some of the survey fees and other charges that it collected. However, the tenants, even though they may get back some of the money that they laid out to the local authority, will still have to pay their own surveyors, or, if they went to a building society, the building society loan fees and their solicitors for any work that has been done. It is unfair that tenants should have to do that twice if they pursue their rights under this measure a second time round.
It may be that the form of redress open to tenants in the case that I mentioned is to take the local authority to the Local Authority Commissioner, or Ombudsman, on the grounds of maladministration. That will not deal in any way with the money that they have paid out, which was solicited from them by the local authority for a transaction into which they individually entered in good faith. That is the main point. They entered into that agreement, and intended to go through with the purchase, in good faith. On the strength of the invitation that they received from a responsible local authority or authorities, they laid out their funds.
My new clause seeks to do two things, in the circumstances described. First it seeks to cause the local authority concerned to repay to the tenant any sums that he may have paid to the local authority. So far so good. I cannot see any legal reason why the local authority might not be able to do that. That would be within its authority.
11.15 pm
Secondly, the clause—this is where the legislation would be necessary—seeks to cause the local authority to indemnify the tenant against
any reasonable loan, survey and legal expenses 
that that tenant has had to pay because of the original invitation to take part in the transaction and the subsequent unilateral decision of the local authority to revoke the arrangement.
The clause is necessary because it may well be outside the powers of local authorities to indemnify the tenant for these expenses. There is a moral case—certainly a strong case—that whatever else may happen in relation to the battle between the local authority and the Government, the tenants themselves, as individuals, do not suffer.
It has been accepted for many years that individuals who are affected by local authority decisions should receive compensation if they suffer material financial loss. I can take the examples of compensation for compulsory purchase or, indeed, disturbance payments paid to tenants when they have to move from a block that is taken down, or payments that are sometimes made as dislocation expenses for tenants who move from a house, to cover removal expenses for decanting when modernisation work takes place, or the grants that are made available for double glazing windows because of airport noise, where the public good, requiring aircraft movements, causes disturbance to tenants whose premises are, unfortunately, located near airports, or again, where planning decisions are taken, or are held up, and a claim arises for blight. In those circumstances, the owner is indemnified against decisions taken by the local authority. I think that a strong case for compensation has been established.
I commend the attitude of the district secretary of the Labour Party in Dundee, Mr. George Galloway. At a recent meeting at which this matter was discussed, he pledged—allegedly speaking on behalf of the Labour Party—that the administration would reimburse people who stood to lose money. That was subsequently overturned by elected councillors in Dundee, who objected to a party official taking a decision on their behalf. Nevertheless, Mr. Galloway's attitude was correct. I never thought that I would support Mr. Galloway in that direction but his sentiments towards equity were better balanced than those of the district council.
This is a question of fairness to prevent injustice to individual tenants who, regardless of their political views, have been affected by a change of policy, legitimate or otherwise, by the local authority. I think that the House should stand on the side of the individuals concerned and agree to indemnify them against the loss that they have sustained.

Mr. Peter Fraser: The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) dressed up the new clause as being of general application to Scotland, but he was talking about and dealing with Dundee district council.
Constituents of mine in the Dundee district council area have similarly been


caught. Having been invited by the previous Tory-controlled Dundee district council to make applications, and having done so, they find that what they set out to do has been taken away from them. This is not a technical point. Within my constituency I have two examples of single-parent families who have also been caught.
I take issue with the hon. Member for Dundee, East on this matter. The Scottish National Party is now about to reap the whirlwind of its own political ambivalence on the sale of council houses. From my political standpoint, it seems both unfair and disgraceful that the new Labour administration within Dundee should have adopted this attitude, but it is not surprising that it should have taken this line. Both before the district council election and in Committee here the Scottish Labour Party has repeatedly expressed its outright opposition to the sale of council houses. The Scottish National Party has sought to sit on the fence on this issue. It must face the fact that democratically elected local government has the right to make the decision on what is or is not to be sold. Alternatively, the SNP takes the line taken by this Government that it is the statutory right of tenants in Scotland to purchase their council houses. I unashamedly support that view.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): Order. This new clause relates to indemnity. We have already had a long debate on council house sales.

Mr. Fraser: My argument is that what is being presented, although dressed up in terms of indemnity, is a complaint about the Labour-controlled Dundee district council. I submit that it is not surprising that Dundee district council should have taken this decision. The inevitable consequence of the stand taken by the SNP is this new clause. Whatever political differences I may have with the hon. Member for Dundee, East—I recognise that he is a lawyer of some ability—he must know that the clause is unworkable nonsense. If he were to explain to the House exactly what he meant, in the law of Scotland, by the unilateral revocation of an intended sale, I would be fascinated to know. It is a consequence of the fact that he will not make up his mind that he now finds it necessary to put forward the new clause. He and his

party must make up their minds. Do they support the Government on the issue of council nouses or do they support the Opposition? If they make up their minds on that matter the new clause will be unnecessary.

Mr. Ernie Ross: I do not wish to argue the pros and cons of the legality of the matter, being a mere humble proletarian and in no way a member of the legal fraternity. I agree with some of the comments made by the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Fraser). It is quite clear that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) is engaged in a piece of political tomfoolery with the new clause. When Labour councillors in Dundee were in opposition they opposed the Labour Government's proposal that council houses might be sold. They made it clear that they would not——

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: The Labour Government did not suggest that we should sell council houses. I wish that some of my hon. Friends would stop repeating a myth.

Mr. Ross: There are one or two district councils that might disagree with my hon. Friend. I do not wish to debate that issue tonight.

Mr. Brown: I wish that my hon. Friend would listen. Will he give me one instance where we suggested to a housing authority that it should sell a single council house?

Mr. Ross: We shall continue that debate later. The Dundee Labour group had many disagreements with the previous Labour Government about their housing policy, and I have no doubt that there will be further arguments in the future until the policy is correct.
The hon. Member for South Angus is correct. The Labour group in Dundee made it clear that they would not sell council houses. It was the main plank of their election campaign. They are morally bound not to sell council houses. Although they may have some feeling for those who mistakenly took up the option under the previous Conservative administration in Dundee, they do not believe that they have any responsibility towards them. They made it clear that they were likely to be the new administration, and that they would not continue with any sales. It is important to consider the position


in Dundee. Although the hon. Member for Dundee, East pretends that the provision covers all local authorities, quite clearly it is aimed at the Dundee district council.
The Labour Party in Dundee has agreed to accept its commitment, as far as it is legally bound to, up to the limit. That involves about 61 houses. It intends to stop sales of houses where the district has simply exchanged prices with the tenant. In the Dundee district there are 40,000 council houses, 5,000 of them in low letting and low demand areas, such as Scarne, Beechwood, Kirkton and Mid Craigie. Those houses will not draw inquiries for sales.
There have been 500 inquiries from council house tenants who evinced a desire to own their homes. Of those 500 inquiries, 80 per cent. were for terraced or semi-detached homes, in what can only be described as the best areas of Dundee. For example, 20 per cent. of the inquiries related to the four in a block, which those who know Dundee will realise are similar to——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The new clause deals with whether indemnity should be given to people who have entered into a legal commitment and incurred expenses. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not go through the whole of the policy. We are at present dealing with a very small point.

Mr. Ross: I shall try not to stray too far, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, it is important to give some background——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have had a long debate on the sale of council houses. This new clause deals with indemnity for anyone who has paid out money and is not able to purchase the house afterwards. Can the hon. Gentleman direct himself to that matter? If not, I shall have to call someone else.

Mr. Ross: I accept what you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not want to cross swords with you. However, I do not think——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not thinking ot crossing swords with me.

Mr. Ross: I do not think that any hon. Gentleman is in any doubt that we are

talking about Dundee district council. I am trying to give hon. Members who may wish to participate in the debate, or divide the House, an indication whether they should support the new clause. Therefore, it is important to give some indication whether or not the new clause is worth supporting.
So far as I am concerned, this attempt at retrospective legislation is a piece of t political tomfoolery, which in itself seeks to support the decision taken by a previous local council on the casting vote of the Lord Provost. I believe that Dundee introduced an ill-advised and badly I drawn-up scheme, which goes much further than what is contained in the Bill. For example, the Government scheme suggests that there should be a 33 per cent., loan to those who wish to buy their houses. The Dundee scheme, which we did not accept, gave a 50 per cent. loan to those who wished to buy their houses. It suggested that someone who entered, a house yesterday could buy it, yet that provision is not contained in the Bill. We also disagreed with many other aspects of the Dundee scheme.
Perhaps more important are the points raised by the hon. Member for South Angus. It is not good enough for the hon. Member for Dundee, East simply to try to hide behind this attempt to safeguard some of his constituents. Clearly, he must put on record whether or not he agrees that council houses in Dundee should be sold.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I thought that I had made the point quite clear. We are not discussing whether the houses should be sold. We are discussing whether to give indemnity to people. If the hon. Gentleman cannot come to that point, I shall call another hon. Member.

Mr. Ross: I do not believe that there is a need for the new clause. Those people for whom the hon. Member for Dundee, East seeks to claim indemnity knew quite well that they were liable to suffer some loss, if they are suffering any loss at all, following the May elections. We in Dundee believe that they should have the basic sums of money returned—that is, the money that they put down initially which allowed them to make application to buy the houses. If they wished to go further they were required to pay another £10 for legal expenses to see whether or not they could be given a council mortgage.
We agree that those moneys should be returned, but we do not see any other responsibility in relation to those people. We made our policy quite clear, and I do not see the need for the new clause as it stands.

Mr. Bill Walker: I declare a constituency interest, in that Dundee district council forms part of my constituency.
There are two reasons why new clause 25 appears on the Amendment Paper. The first is the ambivalent attitude of the Scottish National Party. The second—which should be condemned even more strongly—is the cavalier and callous attitude and action of the Labour administration in Dundee.
This new clause, which is intended to indemnify those individuals who were unfortunate enough to be caught up between one administration and another, is not something that we should brush aside as being of no consequence. The only crime that council house tenants have committed is their honourable desire to purchase the homes in which they live. That is what we should be considering this evening.

Mr. Russell Johnston: I had no intention of participating in this debate, but I found some aspects of it extraordinary. It is extraordinary that the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) should calmly suggest that it is proper that a person should lose money because an administration changes political hue and that we should take no responsibility for that. It is an extraordinary view.
I failed to understand the speech of the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Fraser). I normally listen with great care, attention and respect to the hon. Gentleman. Whether or not the SNP is in favour of selling council houses has nothing to do with the new clause. The clause is concerned with securing indemnity for persons who have——

Mr. Peter Fraser: My point was that, under the law of Scotland, if there is a contract a legal remedy will be available to the tenant. As the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) said, those tenants who have been caught have already taken the legal opinion of a Queen's counsel. One way or another they will succeed.
I asked what was meant by the unilateral revocation of an intended sale. If a person goes into a local estate agent and asks him to advise him whether it would be a good idea for him to buy his council house, will he receive his bus fare, the sum of £5, or whatever? It is nonsense, and the hon. Member for Dundee, East knows that it is nonsense. He is a competent lawyer, and he knows that under the law of Scotland it is absurd to attempt to introduce this category in terms of breach of contract. Like the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), I think the new clause is a matter of political tomfoolery.

Mr. Johnston: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that extended intervention. If he is saying that it is his view that the new clause is legally redundant and that the protection of the law already exists, I would be prepared to abide by the view expressed by the Minister. I would also give him the opportunity to intervene and explain the phrase that has been attacked——

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) for giving me the opportunity to intervene—an opportunity mat was not afforded by the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Fraser), who refused to accept an intervention.
If a person has a legal remedy, and if there is a legal contract, that situation is provided for. Here, we are dealing with people who submit applications and pay money to the local authority where the price may have been agreed but where there is no formal contract in writing that is needed for the purchase of heritage. In those circumstances, it is not simply a question of going to an estate agent. This is where there are direct relationships between the tenant who wanted to purchase and the local authority that offered to sell.

Mr. Johnston: I am grateful to the hon. Member for that intervention. It appears that a number of hon. Members want to intervene. They are helping my understanding of the matter.

Mr. Cook: Perhaps we may nudge forward the hon. Gentleman's understanding a little further. I should like to take up his point about redundancy. I understand that the new clause itself is


redundant right down to the second from last line, where we find the words "shall indemnify", because the fees paid are not in question. I understand that the district council has agreed to repay those fees. That is what the House was told. The only part that is in question is the indemnification in the last two or three lines.
I should not like the hon. Gentleman to be under the impression that that is legally redundant. I understand that the clause seeks to create an explicit protection for people who have shown an interest in purchasing a local authority house—a protection that does not exist anywhere in the private sector. People put their houses up for sale and from time to time change their minds and withdraw the offer of sale, but they are under no obligation to refund survey costs undertaken by people who thought that they might buy. Why should a local authority be under a stricter obligation than any private individual putting his house up for sale?

Mr. Johnston: I approach the matter from a very simple point of view—the possibility of injustice to a number of people who approached a public authority on an assurance by the authority that certain property would be available. If the result is that those people spend money in good faith, with a view to purchasing it, that is different from their entering the private property market, where one knows that one may or may not be fortunate ; one is to some extent taking a chance. But one does not expect that a public authority, having given public assurances, will completely renege on them if its political complexion changes.
That is the essentially simple point that I think the lion. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) is seeking to make. It should not be clouded by political flim-flammery.

Mr. Younger: I well understand the great concern of my hon. Friends the Members for South Angus (Mr. Fraser) and for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) and the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson), who tabled the clause. I understand their concern, because they have constituents who are affected. I shall briefly try to make clear what is the problem and what my reaction to the clause is.
We are concerned with an attempt by the hon. Gentleman to obtain an indemnity for a local authority tenant who in good faith started the process of trying to buy his own home under the scheme introduced by Dundee district council, and was effecting such a purchase when the council's political control changed following the May elections. We are not discussing the principle of whether council houses should or should not be sold ; we are addressing ourselves to a narrow point.
I understand that where the sale has reached the point at which any form of legal bargain has been struck, that is a matter for the courts. Such a person can take action in the courts if he wishes. If the courts find that the deal must still go through, that is a matter for them, and not for the House or for me. The people affected may decide to act in that way.
However, the hon. Member for Dundee, East, the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) and other hon. Members are concerned about those who may have been in the process but not reached the point where any legal bargain had been struck, but had, in good faith, incurred some costs. Those costs could be a deposit—I understand that that has been involved—or in respect of a survey, and so on, all entered into in good faith with a local authority by ordinary people in ordinary homes trying to exercise a right that they thought that the public authority was giving to them.
The hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) will perhaps note that such people are not normally necessarily aware of the full implications of such matters as May elections. Indeed, many of them, alas, do not even vote in them. Therefore, I think that to expect that all such people involved had a clear close knowledge of what was liable to happen, let alone being able to make a value judgment as to who was likely to win the election, is a bit hard. I shall return to that matter shortly. As far as the principle of the matter is concerned, therefore, that is what we are discussing.
It has been suggested that we should now legislate in retrospect to compel the local authority to pay such an indemnity to these people for something that was done before the date of any legislation of this sort, which I suggest the House


should pass. I am very sorry to say that I do not see that it is open to the House to legislate retrospectively in a matter such as this, however much we may feel inclined to favour the cause of these unfortunate tenants. I do not think that we could retrospectively legislate to compel the local authority to indemnify them in arrears when there was no such law at the time that the actions were taken. The principle concerning retrospective legislation is a longstanding one which has always worried the House very much.
The question of what is incurred in the way of costs would, I think, be rather difficult to define, particularly if it were done in arrears. That is another difficulty.
I am not in any way criticising this district council's views now. after the change of control, about selling council houses, because at present there is no law that compels councils to sell council houses. They are perfectly entitled not to do so, just as their predecessors were entitled to decide to draw up a scheme to sell council houses, and did so, very properly—and, of course, I agreed with them. However, if a responsible elected authority decides to use small local people, tenants in their houses, to work off political spite on them, to the effect of possibly causing them considerable financial difficulty, I think that that is the most disgusting piece——

Mr. Ernie Ross: Mr. Ernie Ross rose——

Mr. Younger: I am sorry to have to speak in this way, but I think that that is the most disgusting piece of callous insensitivity that I have heard of any public authority. Opposition Members are all very honourable men, in every respect, but to belong to a party that condones that sort of activity is derjlorable. I hope that they will tell the Dundee Labour Party that it is deplorable. I do not ask anyone to say anything publicly, but I hope that behind the scenes they will tell the Dundee Labour Party that to act in this way towards their ordinary constituents and tenants is quite deplorable and should not be condoned by anyone in a civilised country. I hope that it will not be accepted.

Mr. David Steel: I do not want in any way to minimise the right hon. Gentleman's condemnation, but it is not enough just to condemn what is happening. We

should be able to do something about the unfortunate people who are caught in this trap, A few sentences ago the right hon. Gentleman was talking about retrospective legislation. Does not the difficulty arise because in this case the previous authority was acting with regard to prospective legislation? The Bill was not an Act. Many authorities were preparing schemes based on this Bill. Therefore, I think that it is quite fair that we should take that into account in the Bill.

Mr. Younger: I am sympathetic to the right hon. Gentleman's point. If he could find a way for me to help the unfortunate tenants of Dundee district council I should do so. However, I do not think that he is correct. The previous district council did not anticipate legislation per se. It drew up a scheme, as it was entitled to do. I accept that it did so on advice. The right hon. Gentleman's idea is ingenious, but I do not think that it will work.

Mr. Cook: I note the right hon. Gentleman's vigour and determination. However, it is not clear what the Secretary of State expects the Dundee district council to do. When the Labour Party came to power in that area it was committed to halting sales. As the right lion. Gentleman pointed out, it was entitled to do so. It decided not to go ahead with sales for which there were no binding legal contract. What does the right hon. Gentleman suggest the council should do about those referred to in the last few lines of the provision? As local authorities are creatures of statute, and have no binding contract or legal obligation towards those affected, Dundee district council would be unable to make an ex gratia payment—even if it wished to do so—to cover the expenses. It is difficult to understand what the right hon. Gentleman is so angry about.

Mr. Younger: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has given me an opportunity to spell out the reasons. I hope that he will not mind if I speak frankly. It is incredible that anyone should adopt a bureaucratic attitude to such a situation. The hon. Gentleman is wrong to suggest that Dundee district council would find it beyond its powers to honour——

Mr. Cook: Ask it.

Mr. Younger: Dundee district council is as free as its predecessor was to draw


up a scheme for the sale of council houses on the terms that it chooses. The hon. Gentleman has asked a direct question. In all decency, if I were a member—that is a thought—of the Dundee Labour Party, I would say that when we came to power we pledged that we would not sell council houses. I would say that we were humane and decent people, and that we knew that about 180 people were trying to exercise the right to buy their houses in good faith, and had spent money. I would point out that although we were members of the Dundee Labour Party we would let those sales go ahead because they had been undertaken in good faith. Most people—with the exception of some members of the Dundee Labour Party—would give me great credit if I were to say that.
I appeal to Dundee district council not to reverse its policy. It should realise that the money and family affairs of ordinary people are more important than political principles. For once, the members of the Dundee Labour Party should act as decent people as well as local politicians.

Mr. Ernie Ross: The Secretary of State spoke about the spite of the local Labour group. We have been unable to discuss the scheme under which people were encouraged to buy assets that did not belong to them. If we had had a chance to discuss that scheme, people might have understood. The previous local authority clearly did not have the support of the people of Dundee. As I suggested earlier, it sought to introduce a scheme that went further than the Bill. The district Labour Party is not a spiteful group of people. It wished to ensure that those who had entered into contracts did not lose money. [Interruption.]

Mr. Cook: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister will accept that we are trying to find a solution to an important problem.

Mr. Alan Clark: Then why are we wasting time?

Mr. Cook: It was the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark) who provoked me into raising the point of order. If he wishes to save time, he should do the House the courtesy of——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I save time by intervening? The hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross)

was making a speech. I did not intervene, because hon. Members who were present when the hon. Gentleman made his speech are aware that I prevented his bringing out one or two points that he wished to deal with. I do not wish to be discourteous or unfair to the hon. Gentleman. He is seeking to deal with a point that the Secretary of State made, and I hope that the House will allow him a little latitude.

Mr. Ernie Ross: We did not intend to be spiteful. As the right hon. Gentleman said, a difficulty arises in determining who has incurred what expenses. The Labour Party made it clear that the system would be stopped immediately we came to office. It did all in its power to prevent people even entering into agreements or putting down deposits. It went out of its way to make the position clear. It will honour contracts that have been legally undertaken.

Mr. Younger: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, in opposition the Labour Party has no right to expect people to do anything. When the Labour Party is not in power, it does not have power over people. Labour Members must realise that.
The hon. Gentleman still does not quite have the point, which has nothing to do with the principle of selling houses or the scheme. It is a matter of human decency. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will privately take back to his friends in Dundee district this message. They may by all means follow their political creed and wishes. That is the right of us all. However, if they must take it out on someone, let them take it out on me, or on the Tories, but not on their own tenants, who are innocent people.
I say to the hon. Member for Dundee, East that I am sorry, but I do not believe that the scheme would work as a means of indemnifying those involved. I wish that it could. If I could find a way, I should be only too glad to help, but I am afraid that I must ask the House to reject the new clause.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: This is a serious debate. I had intended to make a joke about the new centre party between South Angus and Dundee, West, but I shall not.
We are dealing with human rights and a small number of people. We are not dealing with what the Secretary of State said about the sales going through. Those who in good faith were invited to take part in the transaction, which was revoked, have expended money, not only to the local authority but to professional advisers, building societies, and so on, and they should not be any worse off. The matter comes down to the rights of individuals and human rights. The Secretary of State was right to speak out, but he, too, has his obligations.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the House is wary of retrospection. As I recall the rule, the House is reluctant to legislate retrospectively to the detriment

of individuals, but it has frequently legislated for their benefit, such as on pneumoconiosis and pension schemes. There is no barrier.

Individuals will be defrauded of their resources. They have entered into an arrangement with a public body. People should be able to rely on the good faith and integrity of local authorities. They are continuing bodies, regardless of who is in control at the time.

I hope that the Secretary of State will reconsider the matter, but in the circumstances I must press my new clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time :—

The House divided : Ayes 8, Noes 178.

Division No. 353]
AYES
[11.54 pm


Beith, A. J.
Penhaligon, David
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Howells, Geraint
Steel, Rt Hon David
Mr. Gordon Wilson and


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Wainwright, Richard (Coins Valley)
Mr. Donald Stewart.


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Walker, Bill (Perth & Perthshire)





NOES


Adley, Robert
Eggar, Timothy
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Alexander, Richard
Elliott, Sir William
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)


Aspinwall, Jack
Falrbairn, Nicholas
McQuarrie, Albert


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Faith, Mrs Sheila
Major, John


Banks, Robert
Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Marland, Paul


Bell, Sir Ronald
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Marlow, Tony


Bendall, Vivian
Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)
Marten, Neil (Banbury)


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Mates, Michael


Best, Keith
Fox, Marcus
Mather, Carol


Bevan, David Gilroy
Garel-Jones, Tristan
Maude, Rt Hon Angus


Bitten, Rt Hon John
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Blackburn, John
Goodhew, Victor
Mayhew, Patrick


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gow, Ian
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gower, Sir Raymond
Mills, lain (Meriden)


Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Miscampbell, Norman


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Greenway, Harry
Moate, Roger


Bright, Graham
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)
Monro, Hector


Brittan, Leon
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Montgomery, Fergus


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Grist, Ian
Morrison, Hon Peter (city of Chester)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Gummer, John Selwyn
Mudd, David


Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&Ew'll)
Murphy, Christopher


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hampson, Dr Keith
Needham, Richard


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Haseihurst, Alan
Nelsor, Anthony


Buck, Antony
Hastings, Stephen
Neubert, Michael


Budgen, Nick
Hawkins, Paul
Newton, Tony


Butcher, John
Hawksley, Warren
Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Heddle, John
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Henderson, Barry
Parkinson, Cecil


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Parris, Mathew


Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Chapman, Sydney
Hooson, Tom
Pattle, Geoffrey


Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Pawsey, James


Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Pink, R. Bonner


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Pollock, Alexander


Colvin, Michael
Kurd, Hon Douglas
Proctor, K. Harvey


Cope, John
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Corrie, John
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Rathbone, Tim


Costain, A. P.
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)


Cranborne, Viscount
Knox, David
Rhodes James, Robert


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Lament, Norman
Ridsdale, Julian


Dickens, Geoffrey
Lang, Ian
Rifkind, Malcolm


Dorrell, Stephen
Lawrence, Ivan
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Law[...]n, Nigel
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Dover, Denshore
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Rossi, Hugh


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Lyell, Nicholas
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Durant, Tony
Macfarlane, Nell
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)
MacGregor, John
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)




Sims, Roger
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)
Wheeler, John


Smith, Dudley (War. and Leam'ton)
Trippier, David
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Speed, Keith
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Whitney, Raymond


Speller, Tony
Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Wickenden, Keith


Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)
Viggers, Peter
Winterton, Nicholas


Steen, Anthony
Waddington, David
Wolfson, Mark


Stevens, Martin
Wakeham, John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Waldegrave, Hon William
Younger, Rt Hon George


Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek



Stradling Thomas, J.
Waller, Gary
TELLERS FOR THE NOES;


Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)
Ward, John
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wells, John (Maidstone)
Mr. Anthony Berry.


Thompson, Donald
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage)

Question accordingly negatived.

Further consideration of the Bill adjourned.—[Mr. Younger.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered this day.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY INSTITUTIONS

The Lord Privy Seal (Sir Ian Gilmour): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the Report of the Committee of Three on European Community Institutions.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): Order, I shall inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

Sir I. Gilmour: I welcome the opportunity on the recommendation of the Scrutiny Committee, to debate this report, which is to be discussed at the European Council meeting in Venice on 12 and 13 June. As the House knows, the report originated with a suggestion by the President of France, and was conducted on the basis of terms of reference agreed by the Governments of all the member States at the European Council held in Brussels in December 1978, when the Labour Government were in power.
For the preparation of the report the Community was fortunate in being able to call upon three distinguished and independent personalities, Mr. Biesheuvel of the Netherlands, Mr. Marjolin from France, and Mr. Edmund Dell from the United Kingdom. Their terms of reference were to examine all the institutions of the Community in the perspective of enlargement, and to suggest practical ways of improving their operation.
I hope that it will be for the convenience of the House if I deal with the report's recommendations institution by institution.
To take first the European Council, which brings together the Heads of State and Government of the member States three times a year, the report recommended limited agendas, limited attendance, coherent preparation and follow-up, early circulation of documents and presidency responsibility for drafting clear and accurate conclusions. In general, we agree with those recommendations.
Over one proposal we, and a number of our partners, had some doubts. That was that the European Council should adopt, in collaboration with the Commission, a "master plan" of priorities for the Community as a whole. We do not feel that the preparation of a specific formal plan of priorities for Community action is a task that the European Council should be called upon to perform. The Government can certainly agree that it is one of the most important tasks of the European Council to give broad guidance for the work of the Council and the Commission in general, but the danger in drawing up a formal plan of priorities is that it either becomes too rigid or so general as to be virtually meaningless.
A second proposal about which there has been some difficulty is that the President of the European Council should appear once during each presidency before the European Parliament. The Government recognise the need to establish a positive relationship with the European Parliament, and one way of furthering that relationship might be for the Prime Minister to appear before the Parliament during the next British presidency.
At least one member Government, however, has difficulty with this proposal for constitutional reasons. It does not seem to us that it need be a rigid rule. Each member State should be able, on assuming the presidency, to act as it sees fit.
The report then devotes considerable attention to ways of improving the efficiency of the ordinary meeting of the Council of Ministers. It considers the


Council to be overburdened with detailed work, which restricts its freedom to concentrate on genuinely political issues. It recognises the key role that the presidency can play in directing the work of the Council, and it draws attention to the value of the presidency outlining its objectives to the European Parliament at the beginning of its terms and of presenting a report at the end.
It also recommends that the presidency should be free to delegate particular dossiers to other member States. Althugh we would not wish to rule out this last idea entirely, we see considerable advantages in retaining unity of control within the presidency. We therefore believe that any such delegation should be a general decision by the Council as a whole, and not just by the presidency.
We believe that a more generally acceptable way to lighten the presidency's burden would be to implement another of the report's proposals, namely, that the resources of the Council Secretariat should be put to fuller use.
To enable the Council to concentrate on policy issues, the report recommends greater delegation of decision taking to the Commission and greater negotiating flexibility for the Committee of Permanent Representatives and lower-level working groups. We support the objective of reducing the number of detailed issues that are at present brought before the Council and would like to see a greater degree of winnowing out by the Committee of Permanent Representatives with the main policy differences only coining for decision to the Council. As to the idea of delegating additional decision-taking responsibilities to the Commission, we are ready to consider this on case-by-case basis in accepted areas of Community activity.
In the interests of speeding up decision-taking within the Council, the report recommends an increased resort to majority voting where this is provided for in the Treaties but accepts that the existence of the Luxembourg compromise, under which, where important interests are at stake, unanimity is required, in a continuing fact of life in the Community. The Government continue to attach great importance to the principle of unanimity where very important interests are at stake. They believe that this recommendation achieves the right balance. They

welcome the report's statement that each member State must be the judge of where its very important interests lie.
I take the right hon. Gentleman's amendment to the Government's motion to refer to the maintenance of the Luxembourg compromise and the existing relationship between the institutions of the Community. The report's recommendation on the greater use of majority voting does not affect the use of the Luxembourg compromise. There is no question of erosion of sovereignty.

Mr. Peter Shore: That is an important point. Indeed, it is the major point upon which we focus in this debate. We are not in favour of introducing, or accepting, majority voting in the Council of Ministers and we do not accept that it is possible to make a distinction between categories of matters that are of serious national importance and those that are not of serious national importance. If they are not of serious national importance they can be agreed in the ordinary way by unanimous voting, and not by resort to qualify majority voting.

Sir I. Gilmour: Of course there is a distinction between serious and non-serious matters. People may have differences that they are prepared, ultimately, to allow to be governed by majority voting, but, as I have already said, it is up to the member State involved to say whether its own important interests are concerned. If they are the Luxembourg compromise applies. There is, therefore, no erosion of sovereignty.

Mr. Jack Straw: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain what, so far as I can see, is a contradiction? At page 51, the report says that it will be up to each member State to decide whether there is an important issue that requires it to exercise a veto. However, at the bottom of that page we see that it will be up to the President to decide whether to put an issue to the Council of Ministers for a vote. It seems to me to that the decision whether a unanimous or a majority vote is required would not rest wholly with the member States but would, in certain circumstances, rest with the presidency.

Sir I. Gilmour: It is still up to a member State to invoke the Luxembourg


compromise if it so wishes. I do not think that there is any contradiction.

Mr. Shore: Has it been the practice of the Council of Ministers during the past year to resort to qualified majority voting, or has the tradition been upheld of maintaining unanimity in all Council matters?

Sir I. Gilmour: In the Foreign Affairs Council there has been unanimity. That has applied to every Council meeting that I have attended.

Mr. Shore: All that we are seeking to make plain is that there should be no departure from the present practice of not resorting to qualified majority voting and maintaining unanimity.

Sir I. Gilmour: We have said that we have no objection to the wise men's recommendations if we think that important national interests are involved. If they are involved, we shall invoke the Luxembourg compromise.

Mr. K. Harvey Proctor: Mr. K. Harvey Proctor (Basildon) rose——

Sir I. Gilmour: Where important national interests are seen to be at stake, member States may continue to insist that discussions should continue until unanimous agreement is reached. In the same way, the report's recommendation for delegating additional decision-taking to the Commission does not alter the relationship between the institutions in any way. I can thus assure the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) that the amendment is otiose, and it follows that we can accept it
So far as the Commission is concerned, the report concludes that its role and authority have declined in recent years. It recognises the value of the Commission's role as initiator and as guardian of the Treaties but argues that it should be made more effective and better adapted to current circumstances.
To this end the report endorses the proposal of the Spierenburg report on the internal organisation of the Commission, that on enlargement of the Community the size of the Commission should be reduced to one member per member State in the interests of efficiency and in order to enable the College of Commissioners to act more as a collective body.
This recommendation has proved controversial. Several of the larger member States which currently appoint two members to the Commission have made clear that they could not accept it. We recognise the advantages on grounds of efficiency of limiting the size of the Commission. On the other hand, we doubt whether serious problems on this score will in practice arise on the accession of Greece, which will raise the number of Commissioners from 13 to 14. For our part the Government are inclined to see advantage in maintaining the present situation until the accession of Spain and Portugal, when we believe the matter should be reviewed again.

Mr. Roger Moate: The area that my right hon. Friend has left is of crucial importance, especially to the extended definition of the Luxembourg compromise. In page 52 the report categorically states that
The overall effect must be to increase the frequency of voting ".
That being so, it means that by taking note of the document we are countenancing or approving a change in procedures of some significance. Will my right hon. Friend tell us in what circumstances he now expects a majority vote to be taken, whereas in the past the unanimity rule has applied?

Sir I. Gilmour: That will take place only when every member of the Nine does not think that very important national considerations arise.
The report recommends that the President of the Commission should be chosen six months before the appointment of a new Commission and that he be consulted on the selection of the other Commissioners and have the last word on the allocation of portfolios. The European Council has already agreed that the next President should be nominated six months before he and the new Commission take office. We also believe that it makes sense to consult the incoming President on the selection of the other Commissioners, but Governments will of course wish to retain the last word in this matter.
The allocation of portfolios has always been a matter for the collective decision of the Commission. W believe that it is best to leave matters that way, although


the President naturally plays a major part in the preparation of that decision.
It has been suggested, not least in a resolution passed by the European Parliament at its April session, that the Parliament should be consulted before first the President and then the other members of the Commission are appointed. Relations between the Commission and the Parliament are laid down in the Treaties. It is clear that the Commission is answerable to the Parliament, not least through the power that the latter enjoys to dismiss the Commission.
The same treaties, however, lay down a specific procedure for the appointment of the Commission. We would prefer to keep to that procedure, which provides for the member governments to appoint the Commission by common accord.
The report recommended certain improvements in relations between the European Parliament and the Commission and Council of Ministers. It recommends that the Commission should present its programme to the Parliament for debate and that both the Commission and the Council should make a more serious response to resolutions adopted by the European Parliament. It also proposes that the operation of the conciliation procedure, which provides for consultation between the Council and the Parliament on Acts with appreciable financial consequences, should be improved.
The Government attach importance to the role ascribed to the Parliament by the Treaties and are ready to play their part in working out practical improvements in these areas, provided that no change in the relationship established by the treaties is involved.
The report points out that the prospective enlargement of the Community to 10 and then 12 members will not only tend to make the functioning of the institutions more cumbersome but will extend the range of differing circumstances and interests among the member States. It therefore urges the member States to maintain their solidarity in the face of the difficulties that the Community is likely to encounter, and argues strongly against any ideas of a "two-speed" Community. The Government wholeheartedly endorse the rejection of any such idea, which we regard as fundamentally misguided.
The Government believe that the report forms a useful basis for ensuring that the Community works with the minimum of cumbersome bureaucracy and that, with the implementation of those proposals which the Member States accept, the Community will be well placed to meeting the challenge of enlargement.
Arguably, the report should have been more wide-ranging, and should have made broader recommendations for the development of the Community, if necessary by amendment of the Treaty. In my view, it was right not to make any such attempt. In the first place, the mandate did not provide for this. Secondly, this is not the time in the Community for futuristic visions. It is a time when we must keep our vision clearly focused on the near-at-hand, and find ways of dealing with the many and urgent practical problems which face us in all fields, and we must do so in order to protect the Community's achievements and to respond to the dangers which threaten it in an uncertain world.
I should like, finally, to extend the Government's thanks to the three authors of the report, and their collaborators, for taking great trouble to produce a sober, helpful and practical piece of work——

Mr. Proctor: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Sir I. Gilmour: No. I am just finishing—a sober, helpful and practical piece of work aimed at promoting the more efficient working of the Community's institutions as we prepare to welcome three new member States.

Mr. Peter Shore: I beg to move, at the end of the Question, to add
but declines to approve any proposals that would weaken the present power of national veto and control in the Council of Ministers.
I had the somewhat confused impression that the right hon. Gentleman was saying he accepted the spirit of v/hat we were saying but nevertheless was endorsing the recommendations in the report, which propose that the present procedures should be changed and that we should deliberately relax the power of control and national veto. I shall come back to that in a moment. We shall have to decide our tactics in this


matter in the light of what we can learn from the right hon. Gentleman during this, unhappily, short debate.
We are talking about a matter of substantial importance. We are dealing with a document that covers the whole area of the European Community institutions. I cannot remember—I have taken part in many debates on the European Community—any serious and sustained discussion of the institutions of the Community. That is something that the House has lacked and that we should indeed put right. We shall look for other opportunities to return to this matter.
I am aware of the widely held view that Community documents, especially those that are aimed at the improvement of the working and machinery of the Communities, are little more than a waste of time.
There is a long history of shelved reports, as many of us can recall. Nevertheless, this report of the Committee of Three is, as the Lord Privy Seal reminded us, on the agenda of the European Council which is meeting next week in Venice. Therefore, it is right that the House should express itself as clearly as it can on the institutions of the EEC and on the main questions raised by the report.
I find it impossible to have any sensible discussion about the range of institutions that now exist in the EEC without some clear philosophy about the nature and direction of the EEC itself.
I have never had any doubt about this matter—at least from the British point of view. My view of the future of the EEC, on the assumption that it is possible for Britain to continue its membership, is that its institutions should reflect the reality of sentiment in this country and in the larger part of the Community. My strong view is that, while there is a wish for alliance, good relations and practical agreement with the countries of Western Europe, there is scepticism about the meaning of "Community", and massive opposition to the concept of "union".
The founding Treaties are a little ambiguous about the dominant purpose of the Community ; but the original architects clearly envisaged what they called "an ever closer union" among the peoples of Europe, and the future of the

Community for them lay in this development.
Whether such an approach was ever possible, I do not know, but from the moment that the Six became the Nine, the impetus to union was inevitably checked. Now that the Nine are shortly to become the Ten and—President Giscard permitting—in two years the Twelve, it seems inevitable that the vast differences of interest, development and history that motivate 12 different European nations will tilt the direction more and more towards the concept of alliance. Enlargement, to me, means dilution—a wider but looser association of European States.
I make this point at the start because it is the guiding light in my approach to tonight's debate on the Common Market's institutions, their development and reform.
The original institutions established by the Treaty of Rome reflect the union rather than the alliance view of the EEC. The Brussels Commission is clearly supranational, and so is the European Court. The European Assembly, during the period of indirect elections down to 1979, was closer to the alliance than to the union view of the EEC. But since direct elections—this was to me a major objection to direct elections—it has obviously come within the union camp, if I may group the institutions in that way.
The one institution that clearly reflects the alliance view is the Council of Ministers, not because of the Treaty's provisions, which call for qualified majority voting over a wide area of decisions, but because of the major change in its modus operandi—the acceptance of the national veto which followed the Luxembourg compromise of 1966.
What is striking to any student of Community affairs is the development and role of institutions that are not even mentioned in the Treaty of Rome. I refer first to COREPER, that all-important and over-powerful committee of national officials who work directly to the Council of Ministers ; the development of the secretariat, which serves the six-monthly presidency of the Council ; the political co-operation meetings of Foreign Ministers ; and, last but by no means least, the European Council, with its four-monthly meetings of Heads of Government.
The report of the three wise men has at least one merit : it surveys comprehensively and for the first time the functioning of all these institutions—those created by the Treaty and those that have evolved since the Treaty was signed.
The authors were asked to look at the machinery and procedure of the institutions to see how they could be improved and, much more controversially, how they could contribute towards the goal of European union. I am glad to say that they found that latter task altogether too daunting and confined their observations on this question to a single chapter which is no more than a survey of the most important problems affecting member States.
I quote from page 106 of the report.
All the great problems facing a united Europe today—whether we think of monetary stability, energy supplies, or the new international division of labour—are world problems, which frequently require negotiations and agreements at world level or with particular economic units outside the Community.
I welcome that clear recognition of the limitation of the role of the EEC, and the simple fact that it is in far larger forums that effective world policies will be necessary in the 1980s.
As the authors rightly go on to say—I think that it is part of the same quotation put before us by the Lord Privy Seal :
The present time seems to us ill-suited to futuristic visions which presuppose a profound and rapid transformation of attitudes within the Community.
That is a long way from the euphoria of European union by 1980, which emerged from the Paris summit meeting as long ago as October 1972.

Mr. Selwyn Gummer: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to mislead the House in any way. Page 106 goes on to state that
It is desirable that the Community and the Nine should, in these various relationships, act as a united body.
Therefore, the paragraph means precisely the opposite from what was suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, who said that because it was all part of world problems the sense of the Community was less important. As the paragraph illustrates clearly, the sense of the Community is more important, because in

world contexts we should act as a united body.

Mr. Shore: I do not wish to labour that point at great length. The hon. Gentleman should contain himself. He becomes rather excitable in these debates. The report points to a fact that has often been overlooked in these debates, namely, that so many of the problems that we face in the world today cannot and will not be solved within the context of a group of nations, even an important group of nations, in Western Europe. They can be solved only in much larger forums—I refer especially to oil problems and the OECD. I do not wish to pursue that point further at the present time.
I turn to the more practical suggestions, of a more modest nature, which the so-called three wise men made about the functioning of the Community's institutions. They rightly give a great deal of space to the European Council. I say rightly, because that non-Treaty institution is undoubtedly the most important institution in the Community. Moreover, in its procedures it reflects the alliance character of the Council of Ministers. Unanimity is the rule, and long may it continue. There are undoubtedly difficulties with the European Council. I suspect that the three pre-set meetings a year are too many. There is a real danger that its informality, and the high publicity that attaches to its meetings, could lead to conclusions that are ill-thought out and too vague for effective subsequent action by other Community institutions. It is a real problem ; no one should doubt that. On balance, I would favour two well-prepared meetings a year, one during each six-monthly presidency, together with a willingness to meet ad hoc if so required by major developments.
The Council of Ministers is the key Treaty institution. It is essential that the veto power, recognised since the Luxembourg agreement in 1966, should be retained. I reject—this is why I moved the amendment—the suggestion that
majority voting should be accepted in all cases where the Treaty does not require unanimity and no very important national interests are involved.
I do not think that it is possible to work out any guidelines that would distinguish very important national interests from important national interests, or simply


national interests. To attempt to do so would give rise to protracted and sterile debate.
I do not know whether the Government intend to accept the proposals of the three wise men, and whether that would involve a significant departure, or any departure, from normal practice. The Lord Privy Seal has not enlightened the House on that point. It is an important matter when deciding how to advise my colleagues and the House to vote tonight.
I should also like to make it plain that I do not accept the recommendation that there should be greater delegation of decision-making by the Council, both to the Brussels Commission and to CQRE-PER. These are both unelected and bureaucratic bodies. Indeed, far from delegating Council decision-making to them, the real problem is to ensure that more of the decisions that they now take are brought before the Council of Ministers.
I now turn to the Council of Foreign Ministers, meeting in political co-operation. That institution, which owes nothing to the Rome Treaty, exactly fits the alliance view of the Common Market. Provided that it is not used as an excuse for individual nations to stay silent when they should speak out, provided that the obsession for speaking with one voice is overcome, and provided that it does not take precedence over other major international forums, it could play a sensible and useful role in international affairs—as useful as Western European Union proved itself to be throughout so much of the earlier post-war period.
So much for the alliance institutions of the Community. I now want to say a few words about the quasi-federal institutions. First, there is the Commission. As the three wise men correctly point out, it has several roles. It has the right of policy initiative, it polices the Treaties, and it has executive functions for the day-to-day implementation of common policies. Certainly, since the high-water mark of the Hallstein era, the Commission has indeed lost power and influence—in my view, not enough. The Commission's right of initiative in all policy matters is still a matter of major concern. One of the advantages of the growth of importance of the Council presidency and the formation of the

European Council is that rival sources of initiative have de facto been created. I certainly hope that they will be strengthened.
The Commission has, however, a number of independent powers under the Treaty, and these need to be carefully watched and checked. These include its considerable delegated powers in the operation of the CAP. The procedures vary with different management committees. I am sure they need review. I suspect that it is in their special decision-making procedures when dealing with absurdities such as the sale of cheap butter to the Soviet Union that the management committees find what authority they have.
Furthermore, it is notorious that the Commission has a seemingly insatiable appetite for harmonisation proposals under article 100 of the Treaty. The three wise men devote an appendix to that subject and sensibly distinguish between harmonisation proposals that are directly relevant to the main purposes of the Treaty and those that are not, but the truth is that an enormous amount of unnecessary work continues to be generated by the Commission as it seeks to stretch Community competence and interest into areas which are far outside the Treaty itself.
When I was Secretary of State for the Environment, I was amazed at the sheer volume of proposals—and their total inappropriateness—that flowed from the so-called environment programme of the EEC. It is all too easy to see how these things develop. The Commission proposes ; the Council is persuaded to pass a seemingly innocuous and non-binding resolution, then a whole series of draft directives are fired from Brussels at the Council of Ministers. COREPER does most of the examination and processing, and then Ministers are called in basically to ratify what has already been bureaucratically agreed and to settle what officials believe should be the few outstanding points of disagreement. That should not be allowed to continue.
I have two proposals that I think could help and that are worth consideration. First, it is necessary to bring COREPER under stronger political control. I would wish to see a Minister of State replace the eminent civil servant who now sits on that Committee in Brussels.
My second proposal is that in the whole area covered by article 100—aproximation and harmonisation—and in many other areas of the Treaty, directives should be time-limited. It is a matter of acute embarrassment to Ministers to discover that their predecessors had long ago committed them to laws and regulations that they had no means of repealing or amending, except if they got—this is improbable—the unanimous agreement of the Council to do so. Just as we have an expiring laws continuation machinery in the House of Commons, I believe that no Community directive should have a longer life than three or four years, and thus make possible the amendment or repeal, in the light of experience, of those directives that are clearly not working or that are inappropriate. I hope that the Government, if they have not considered that before, will do so now.
I do not believe that the judgment of the European Court should be binding on the Community. Instead, it should have the power to give advisory opinions. In the event, of course, it has no means of enforcement against determined national policies—unless, as in our European Community Communities Act, the legislatures of member States allow it such authority. My view is entirely in line with that of the Government of France, who demonstrated in their approach lo the question of lamb imports from Britain and the judgments of the European Court upon it that even now they regard the European Court as having only an advisory function.
I hope that I have made plain my view of the three wise men's report, and, further, what I believe to be the philosophy that should guide our consideration of the future role of the Community's institutions. Alliance is the key concept. Of all the Treaty institutions the Council of Ministers most accurately reflects this approach. There cannot be any tampering with the rights of veto or any shuffling of Council responsibilities to non-elected bodies.
That is why, unless we hear clearly during the remainder of this short debate that the Government do not intend to change and tamper with existing procedures and do not intend to transfer repairs to COREPER, the Commission, or to the Council of Ministers, I shall

advise the Opposition and the House as a whole to vote in favour of the amendment.

Sir Ronald Bell: It is most regrettable that this debate should be taking place so late at night, and that it should be of such short duration. This document is one of the highest importance, and one which takes us on a conveyor belt to an unwanted destination. We should have had a three-hour debate on this issue, ending at midnight, instead of which we are having a one-and-a-half hour debate which will end at about 1.30 am. It is most unfortunate that this seems to have become the pattern for even the most important debates on the Treaty of Rome and the Brussels institutions. It compels all hon. Members to be brief in order that those other hon. Members who wish to take part may do so.
This document is not just an essay on improving procedure in the Common Market. It concerns improvement for a specified purpose, and that purpose is set out in the terms of reference. It concerns progress "towards European union". That is what this is all about. Therefore, the fundamental analysis throughout the document is faulty, because this is not an aim that the peoples of the member States wish to be obtained.
The right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) spoke of some of the excesses of the Community. It is interesting to note that in the document the three authors set out what most of us would consider the Community's defects as its achievements so far. On page 5 they set out some of the achievements that they think have been overlooked, and say by way of illustration :
In the four years 1975–1978 the Commission presented a total of 2,798 legislative proposals to the Council and withdrew 212 proposals (a balance of 2,586).
What would be thought of us if we passed 600 new laws every Session, on the Government's proposal, and if the Government withdrew 50 of their Bills every Session?
The European Legislation &c Select Committee recommended the document for debate. Those of us who serve on the Committee know that the torrent of paper from Brussels is an outrage. It has two characteristics that the House should


not overlook. First, it is permeating into every branch of our life—what the document calls setting up a legal entity throughout. Secondly, it is cumulative. As the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, there is no time limit on these matters. The extent of our arrangements that is Brussels in origin, Community legislation, is increasing substantially every year—one might almost say "dramatically"—because it is cumulative. It will gradually take over almost the whole of our legislative arrangements.

Mr. Tarn Dalyell: Many of us on the European Legislation &c Select Committee made the point that we hoped that the document would be debated in prime time at some length.

Sir R. Bell: I entirely agree. I have made that point, I hope emphatically. It is scandalous that a document of this significance should be accorded this treatment. Most people, because the newspapers have gone to bed, will never even know about this debate. Even those of our colleagues present tonight are not numerous.
The document proposes the tighter institutionalisation of all the Community's activities. The meetings of Heads of Government become meetings of the European Council, the procedure of which, it suggests, should be formalised. It says that its agenda should be primarily consideration of drafts prepared by the Brussels secretariat.
The President of the Commission is alleged already to attend by right. In fact, it is a meeting of Heads of Government, nothing to do with the Treaty of Rome, and he attends by invitation. It is proposed in the document that the President should be built up in power and authority, clearly with the intention that he should become a kind of Prime Minister, with the other Commissioners as Ministers in his Cabinet. It is specifically proposed that nobody should be appointed a Commissioner by a member State without consulting the President. So be it, but the document also says that nobody should be appointed a Commissioner by a member State against the President's wishes. In other words, he is to have a veto on the appointment of members of the Commission by nation States. Is that something that the British Government will endorse? My right hon.

Friend did not mention it, but to me it is a most significant proposal.
It is then proposed that the presidency of the Council of Ministers should also be built up so that the President—

Sir Ian Gilmour: I made it clear in my speech that we did not accept that proposal.

Sir R. Bell: I did not hear my right hon. Friend say that. As he did, that is reassuring so far as we in this country are concerned. But that is the proposal put forward.
It is proposed that the President of the Council of Ministers should decide what subjects should be decided by vote and could, at will, exclude any subject from the agenda. If hon. Members look at page 41 of the document, they will see that it is quite explicitly put forward, without any apology or qualification, that :
the Presidency should be able to reject any substantive item proposed by others for the agenda, consulting the Commission as necessary.
What sort of a Council of Ministers would we have under the proposals in this document if the President for the time being could exclude any substantive item that a member State wished to put on the agenda of the Council of Ministers?
The whole idea is to turn the Brussels set-up from a treaty organisation into a super-State, controlled not by delegates from national capitals but internally by its own institutions. That is not what the Governments of the member countries want. It is not what their peoples want. But the people who work inside such an organisation as this are soon working for it and not for those who sent them there. The organisation becomes an end in itself—politically, a sort of Frankenstein, and infinitely expansionist.
The Treaty of Rome gives legitimacy and stimulus to these tendencies, as the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar pointed out. That is the principal reason why we must have a quite different arrangement from the Treaty of Rome with our Continental neighbours, and why we should, meanwhile, regard all proposals such as this with the utmost suspicion. If we do not do so, we shall find ourselves swept along to a destination which most of us profoundly abhor.

Mr. Russell Johnston: I too do not consider that this report is either very stimulating or very encouraging, but I take that view from an entirely opposite posture to that adopted by the hon. and learned Member for Beacons-field (Sir R. Bell).
As the Lord Privy Seal said, one certainly welcomed the establishment of the Committee of Three. But, from the Liberal point of view, one did that because one saw that the steady erosion of the Community's decision-making capacity was leading to regular situations in which there was inertia. One saw that the Tindemans report, for example, which we had welcomed, was being pigeonholed, and one saw enlargement in the offing. One hoped that there would be a new initiative, and one hoped that, perhaps, the Committee of Three might provide the opportunity for it.
I am afraid that I do not think that it does that. To do the Committee justice, right at the beginning it recognised this by saying that at the end of the day it did not believe a solution could be found in terms of "procedural and mechanical adjustments". That was a secondary matter. The reasons for failures in the Community were "political". That is true. The committee could very usefully have stopped at that point, because it did not say a very great deal after that.
Despite the apocalyptic visions of the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield of super States, the prospectus that I read was very far from being that. It ploughed on for 109 pages.

Sir Ronald Bell: I should like to be clear that the hon. Gentleman regards the prospect of the super State as apocalyptic. That is a very important matter that we should have on the record from the Liberal Party.

Mr. Johnston: I did not say that. I said that the hon. and learned Gentleman regarded the matter as apocalyptic. I did not say that I did. I do not regard progress towards European union as being other than desirable.
I notice that the report places great emphasis on the Council. That emphasis is mistaken. There are 49 pages on the European Council and the Council of Ministers, and about 22 pages on all the other institutions. The wise men want to

strengthen the European Council. They think that it should have a broad policymaking role. I do not agree. The European Council is not equipped for such a task. That is the Commission's job. The Commission should not become a general secretariat to the Council. I am sure that the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield would like it to develop in that way. It has been suggested that the President of the European Council should make six-monthly reports to the European Parliament. However, that would be a cosmetic. It would constitute a consultative exercise only if the President discussed future action with the European Parliament and its committees before Council meetings took place.
The Council is the central cause of inertia in Community decision making. I do not agree with the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) about the Luxembourg compromise. That compromise has had a bad effect on Community decision making.
The concept of a vital interest has been abused. I agree with the Lord Privy Seal. He tried—in a somewhat circumlocutious manner—to avoid answering the questions that were put. However, he clearly believed that there was a difference between an important and a less important issue. I would have thought that that was a fairly simple political concept. There is a difference between something that is vital, and something that is not. The right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar wishes to ensure that all decisions—vital, less vital or unimportant—arc unanimous. I reject that approach.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: Is it not clear that if a country does not like a measure, it can say that it is important and in its national interest? It can therefore prevent a measure from being enacted. The Committee of Three has done nothing in that respect. It has stated that all member countries have the right to stop any measure.

Mr. Johnston: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. However, the Committee of Three should have pressed boldly for majority voting. At the very least, it should have suggested that if a country invoked the idea of a vital interest, it would have publicly to explain why it had done so. It is often difficult to find


out which country has blocked what, and why. For example, we recently blocked the non-quota section of the regional fund. The House has not discussed that issue. The Government have given no explanation. That is profoundly unsatisfactory.
I agree—Liberals generally agree—to disagree with the three wise men. Perhaps I could have phrased that more felicitously. I shall start again. I do not believe that it is a good idea to reduce the number of Commissioners after enlargement.
It is surprising that, contrary to the views expressed by the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield, the three wise men seem to believe that there are insufficient portfolios to occupy the Commissioners after enlargement. I do not accept that. The Commission is the linchpin of the Community's institutional framework. It must remain independent. As I said, it must not allow itself to drift into becoming a secretariat for the Council of Ministers.
The problem with the Commission, which to some extent Roy Jenkins has sought to overcome in stressing that its role is political, is that it must try to ensure that its proposals are acceptable to the Council or there is no point in going through a long, laborious process. The result is that often, when a proposal is put to the Council, it is so attenuated and compromised in order to balance national pressures that the only body capable of making a fair evaluation of the proper action in European terms is prevented from outlining such propositions fairly and clearly.
Time is short. I should like to say a great deal more, but many other hon. Members wish to speak. The nature of the debate will be, and has been, coloured by the never-ending argument about whether we see the Community developing into a more coherent grouping, which is my wish and which inevitably presumes more effective supranational structures, or as a grouping from which we should like to withdraw. Every discussion about any aspect of the Community seems to be put in that way. It is profoundly depressing for the Community's future that the only amendment on the Order Paper is negative and backward looking

and that the Government have accepted it. The Lord Privy Seal even said that this is not the time in the Community for futurist visions. I believe that it is. The Community desperately needs Britain to make an effort to make it work better. It will not work better if all that we can do is vie with each other as to which country is the more nationalist.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call the next hon. Member, I draw attention to the fact that there are only 23 minutes left before I hope to call the Front Bench spokesman.

Mr. Selwyn Gummer: I start by agreeing with the serious complaint of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Sir R. Bell) about the time allotted to the debate and the time of night. We have just spent an hour discussing the pecuniary position of 180 citizens of Dundee. Although that may be of great importance it is not as important as this debate. We must press those who make these decisions—and there is always a decent reticence about who they are—for serious matters to be given serious time.
I do not share my hon. and learned Friend's fears about the document. I perhaps find the apocalypse a less frightening possibility. However, I believe that the way forward for the European Community must be to grow together rather than follow a laid down programme, with careful steps imposed from outside.
I am disturbed that the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) should have been upset that I was excited about his suggestion that the report means the opposite of what it does mean. If we are to make anything of the Community we must regard as important the concept of seeking to do together that which we can do together in the world. To ignore the final sentence of an important paragraph and pretend that it means something else is something about which we should be excited, whatever view we take of the Community.
It is a pity that the invigoration of the Community should be left entirely to my hon. Friends who wish to build unity in Europe. It is sad that a party with a


long tradition of internationalism should propose such a mealy-mouthed amendment. It is so unimportant and otiose that the Government can accept it or not as they think fit. It shows how empty the Opposition are in their consideration of Europe's problems.
The right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar made a sad comment on his attitude to the European Court. One of the most satisfactory ways in which we can bring some order to the long disorder in Europe is to have an institution which we can support in its careful and deliberate decisions. The fact that the French have not done that recently is no reason why the British should follow. I wish that we could set the example and take the lead. I wish that we could say that we are prepared to accept the judgment of the court which is making some important judgments about the human rights of people in this country. The human rights of our people depend on the ultimate court which decides whether the law is being obeyed. If the French will not follow that ideal, we must set the example.
The right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar mentioned unelected institutions. It is difficult to understand that the European Parliament, now that it is elected, is less than the place that he would like, and that other unelected institutions should be brought down to size. I hope that the European Parliament will grow in power because it is based upon all the people.

Mr. Proctor: From where will the European Parliament gain its power?

Mr. Gommer: It will gain power from the representative people who elected it. That is why those who fear that the spirit of Europe will grow fought hard against the elective process in the European Parliament.
I hope that this report will be noted in the spirit of the remarks of the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston). It is a first attempt to draw up some suggestions. It is not a long step. It is not a very exciting report. It is, however, an important step. We are now beginning to examine the Community to which we belong and to which we shall continue to belong and which will become the most important institution in the free world.

We should have spent more time discussing what is a small step on a loag road.

Mr. Robert Maclemian: Both the Government and the Opposition Front Benches are at least united in believing that this is not a time for futuristic vision. It might be thought that some hon. Members, so far from looking forward, have been looking backwards The value of the report should not be judged by the wrong standards. The practicality of its suggestions mark the report as a distinguished contribution to improving the efficiency of the Community.
The report is clearly intended to tackle what the three wise men describe as the lourdeur of the Community's operations—the cumbersome aspect that flows from inadequate preparation for meetings of the Council, the proliferation of papers, and practical obstacles that not only clog up the machinery but can actually prevent forward-looking decisions being taken. Judged at that level, the report is important. I imagine that the institutions will concern themselves more with those recommendations than those of a striking and politically controversial nature on which the Lord Privy Seal gave the Government's view.
It was right that the report should set out clearly, at the beginning, both the nature of the achievements of the Community in the period to the present time and show clearly that the Community is not the mere alliance of like minded people that my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) suggested as its role. It is a wholly new political institution that contains elements of alliance and elements of union. It has created, by the important transfer of powers to the Community institutions, supranational bodies more fitted to take decisions effectively in matters that cannot be decided individually by member States.
It has also created a new legal order that my right hon. Friend also called in question, expressing doubt about its effectiveness. The corpus of law being built up by the European Community deals largely with matters that do not touch the vital interests of member States. As it is possible to distinguish the vital interests of member States in matters that fall to be decided by the


Council of Ministers, so that distinction can be seen in the operation of the European Court.
For example, many decisions have been taken by the court in the sphere of European competition policy. That is properly a subject of legal regulation and it is beyond the competence of individual member States to regulate effectively in this sphere, even to protect their own national interests. It goes far towards what the Labour Party has seen for many years as an important objective—namely, the desirability of exercising some control over the multi-national companies that are so responsible for what happens in the development of our economy.
I should also like to point out the liveliness of the development of the Community, to which the three wise men draw attention, and, as they put it, a new international presence on the world negotiating scene. That may smack more of alliance than of union, but it is because these negotiations are conducted with one voice and on the basis of a prepared and agreed position that the voice of the Community is listened to with more respect than would be nine individual States seeking to co-ordinate their positions.
In suggesting the dismantling of some of the institutions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney and Poplar does less than justice to the achievements of the Community and, far from being futuristic, is backward looking in his approach.
We are not in a position of stasis in the development of European union, as has been implied in more than one speech. Direct elections and the establishment of the European monetary system are marked achievements in the direction of union and it is interesting that the terms of reference of the three wise men incorporated the injunction that they should consider measures necessary to adjust machinery and measures for progress towards European union. Although that is not a consummation that will be arrived at for many years—and many of us think that it would be wrong to try to bring about such a consummation in advance of public opinion—it is right that measures should be taken to make the machinery of the Community more efficient and to tend in that proper direction.
One of the most controversial and important recommendations was that the European Council should adopt, in collaboration with the Commission, priorities for the Community as a whole. The analogy is with the Queen's Speech at the beginning of a parliamentary Session. I believe that the Government were right to take the view that that recommendation was not a good idea. The necessary preparations that would be involved would result in the establishment of a bureaucratic machine which would militate against some of the other objectives of the three wise men who emphasised the importance of speed and flexibility in the operation of the European Council. I understand the reasons for seeking to institutionalise the role of the Council in giving an impetus to the Community's proceedings and a shape to its deliberations, but the Government were right not to accept that recommendation. I am also glad that the Lord Privy Seal has accepted the desirability of the President of the European Council appearing before the European Parliament once every six months.
The question of the delegation of decision making is not a matter of ideology but a matter of practicality and not one to which, if we wish to see the Council of Ministers operating effectively, we should take exception. If matters are important, they will be decided by Ministers. If they are not important or are technical, they can be ironed out at an official level, with reference to Ministers if necessary. Putting on the shoulders of Ministers every decision that the Council must take will disrupt the business of the Council and prevent progress.
One of the other controversial elements in the debate has been whether the Luxembourg compromise has been watered down by the recommendations of the Committee of Three. It appears that the Opposition amendment is latching on to that. I can only say that I think it is perfectly plain from everything that the three wise men have said that no such intention was in their minds. They specifically maintained the Luxembourg compromise and acknowledged the right of every member State to recognise what its own major national interests required it to do in voting. If a matter is not considered by a member Government to raise a point of vital national interest it is


clearly nonsensical that it should be necessary to obtain the support of that member Government for the particular proposal. That is not an issue of high principle but one of practicality, designed to speed up decision making and to render the Council of Ministers a more effective body.
I welcome the report and express gratitude to the three wise men on the speed with which they produced it. That is, perhaps, in contrast with the relative slowness of the Council in acting upon it.

Mr. Tony Marlow: I speak to the House as one with the strongest commitment to Europe—I am probably one of the most dedicated Europeans in this House. I believe that it is absolutely vital that we work together with our European friends and allies in defence and foreign policy. The Americans are less certain in the world and the Russians are becoming daily more dangerous.
However, the great tragedy of our current association with European is that we have associated with the Community on the wrong issues, such as the CAP and trading policy. We are enmeshed in the minutiae of economic measures. The report before the House would seek to enmesh us even further and even more directly and if that happens it will be more difficult, damaging and dangerous—and cause more trouble—when, eventually, we have to withdraw from some of the institutions with which we are involved.
As the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) said we move towards an alliance—as opposed to a federation—which some of my right hon. and hon. Friends, for reasons best known to themselves, wish to follow at the moment.
When one looks at any report, one should first see who are the authors. The authors of this report are a Dutchman named Mr. Biesheuvel, Mr. Edmund Dell—of whom Lady Bracknell might have said that to be a Socialist was unfortunate but to be a Socialist and a European was to be damned careless—and Mr. Robert Marjolin, a foreigner and a Frenchman as well. As hon. Members have said, part of the objective of this report is to achieve progress towards European union. I think that many of my right hon. and

hon. Friends, as well as Labour Members, would resist the way in which we are progressing towards European union at the moment.
I touch briefly on a couple of the recommendations in the body of the report. It says says that before 1981 the European Council should adopt, in collaboration with the Commission, priorities for the Community as a whole. That is a sort of European national plan with a series of commitments. That would mean that when Her Majesty's Government wished to put forward proposals and policies in the House they would be tramelled by European procedures and be prevented from adopting proposals which they might otherwise think were in the best interests of the nation.

Sir Ian Gilmour: I did not say that we accepted that part.

Mr. Marlow: I am delighted to hear that my right hon. Friend is not accepting that. I did hear him say that before. I appreciate the point that my right hon. Friend is making. However, I did raise that point because these sort of recommendations predominate throughout the whole of this paper.
We talk about a greater delegation of decision making. Why is that? Are too many decisions being made at the moment? Can the structure not cope with the decisions that are being made at the moment? My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Sir R. Bell) has already maintained that we are getting far too many papers from the European Community. If we are to delegate decisions, there will be more of them and they will be bad ones.
Time has moved on. There is much more that I would like to say. But I think that to accept this wretched piece of paper would be damaging to the sovereignty of the House and to the interests of the constituents that I and others represent.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call the hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody).

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I make no personal complaint about not being called. However, should it not be put on the record for the benefit of the Leader of the


House that, despite all hon. Members clearly truncating their speeches and being unselfish in limiting their speeches, at 26 minutes past one o'clock in the morning, with no vote, at least nine hon. Members wanted to speak? It is totally unsatisfactory that in a debate of this sort and in these circumstances the Front Bench speakers are being called. I make no complaint about the Front Bench spokesman being called, but should not this be recorded for the benefit of the Leader of the House?

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm that, had this been a Commission document, rather than a non-Commission document, and subject to Standing Order No. 3, it would have been within Mr. Speaker's discretion not to put the Question if he had considered that there had been inadequate time? Is there any other Standing Order that applies to the document not being a Commission document?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not have the discretion in this instance.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I find it appalling that we should be talking about something as important as the institutions of the European Community so superficially. It is frightening that the House, which increasingly has been faced with decisions being taken by the Community institutions, is forced to talk about reform with an embarrassingly superficial amount of time at its disposal. I hope that this will never happen again.
I do not regard the report as the best thing since sliced bread. It is typical of many Commission documents. One of the nice things about the Community is that frequently the problems of language produce their joyous moments. In the official report of the European Parliament of 12 May the French language version records its appreciation of the report not by the three sages—that is to say, wise men—but by the three singes—that is to say, monkeys. I cannot help but regard that as an interesting Euro-Freudian slip.
The document does not deal with the important issues. It does not refer to the effect that the Commission is having on our day-to-day life. It does not consider

the way in which the Commission is functioning. It does not examine the freezing of posts and the rigidity of the structure. It does not turn its attention to the areas of the European Court of Justice that concern me the most. It does not spell out the way in which the court is taking decisions that are highly political in their implications, are frequently not debated in the House and are having the effect of allowing European law to take precedence over our own law.
In the brief time that is available to me I return to the substance of the Opposition's amendment. It is not good enough, when dealing with an issue of such importance, to say "Yes, we accept the Opposition's amendment, but when it suits us we shall ignore it". Unless I am gravely mistaken, that is exactly what the right hon. Gentleman was saying. I draw his attention to the exact wording of the amendment—namely :
declines to approve any proposals that would weaken the present power of national veto and control in the Council of Ministers.
It is not possible to accept what the right hon. Gentleman appears to be suggesting—namely, that there is not a delegation of powers because we still have the right to decide on the issues that are of national interest.
The right hon. Gentleman and I know that there will always be instances when something is important but, because it cannot be defended as being absolutely vital, it will be allowed to go by default. Therefore, I ask him again to spell out in the five minutes that he has whether he is suggesting that there is no change in the situation. If that is what he is saying, and if he accepts the Opposition amendment on that basis, we are prepared to go ahead without a vote. Frankly, I warn him that if the Government imagine that they can say "There, there" to the House of Commons on something as basic and important as this, and then, within a very short period of time, demonstrate in the Council of Ministers that they are prepared to go along with the whole question of majority voting, they will be opening themselves to charges of straight dishonesty in relation to the House of Commons.
We are becoming increasingly tired of the situation that arises where the Scrutiny Committee decides that matters are of immense importance, yet the House


of Commons does not have to take a decision or even make its decision clear.
I ask once more, and I ask in very simple terms, whether the Lord Privy Seal is saying that he accepts not just the exact wording on the Order Paper but the spirit and the intention behind the Opposition amendment. If he does not, will he please explain to us exactly what he has in mind?

Sir Ian Gilmour: The Government will not be very encouraged to accept future Opposition amendments if the Opposition complain that the Government have done so. It would have been easier to vote against the amendment.
There has been a considerable contrast in this debate. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Sir R. Bell) saw the report as leading to a super State, whereas the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) thought that it had very little in it and that it was very day-to-day, jejune stuff. Certainly, it would seem unlikely to those of us who knew Mr. Edmund Dell that he would come out strongly in favour of a super State. Therefore I cannot help feeling that a great many of the fears about this stated by hon. Members on both sides have been rather overdrawn.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Eye (Mr. Gummer) pointed out, the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) made one or two fairly selective quotations. I have no objection to him not paying attention to what I said, but he attacked the report without reference to what I said, except my remarks on his amendment.
The hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) made a rather strident speech and asked the same question four times. There is no great difficulty. I said that we were prepared to accept the amendment for the simple reason that it is totally otiose. There is nothing in this report which in any way reduces the right of national veto.

Mr. Marlow: Mr. Marlow rose——

Sir I. Gilmour: I am very sorry but I have only two minutes. It is best if one of us speaks at a time.
There is no question but that the Luxembourg compromise is not in any way affected by this report. The report

advocates that people should agree matters. It does not suggest voting. It advocates that people should come to a compromise, which is, roughly, what I think the Labour Party is not very good at doing. However, it is what most bodies seek to do. If my hon. Friend will contain himself and read pages 50 and 51 of the report he will see that the member States are exhorted to come to agreement and not to vote, if at all possible. The Luxembourg compromise is in no way affected by this report. Therefore it is perfectly all right for us to understand that.
I see that I have run out of time. Therefore I shall not repeat what I said earlier.

Mr. Dalyell: Has the Lord Privy Seal read the report?

Sir I. Gilmour: I read the report, I think I can say, at least one and a half times.

Mr. Jack Straw: If the Lord Privy Seal has read the report, I find his remarks strange. The Opposition's amendment is otiose only if the report proposes no change at all in the status quo. It is proposing a change in the status quo. It is proposing that majority votes should be used in circumstances where at the moment vetoes are exercised——

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of Proceedings on the motion, the debate stood adjourned.

MINISTRY OF DEFENCE STAFF (BATH)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Cope.]

Mr. Chris Patten: There is hardly any hon. Member I should less like to keep from his bed at this hour of the morning than my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy. We have known one another man and, in my case, boy for 13 or 14 years. I received a good deal of my initial political education at his hands, so he has a great deal to answer for in that respect.
More recently, my hon. Friend was extremely understanding when in Bath we were resisting—happily, successfully—the ill-judged pork barrelling scheme that he inherited from the previous Labour Administration for relocating jobs from Bath to Glasgow. My hon. Friend has my condolences for the fact that this thorny problem has landed in his "In" tray after passing like a hot potato through several pairs of ministerial hands.
While I have certain qualms about keeping my hon. Friend up tonight, I have no qualms about raising this question again on the Floor of the House, but in greater detail than I achieved in the debate on the Defence White Paper. I do so principally for two reasons. The first is that it affects 67 of my constituents who feel that they have been unfairly treated. The number was 68, but one of the ladies concerned left her job before the redundancy notices were issued.
The second reason is that I believe this question touches a wider principle—namely, how we can best improve efficiency, reduce manpower and generally get better value for money throughout the Civil Service. I should make it clear, because I want to return to this point later, that I wholly support the objectives for the Civil Service which were set out by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister a few weeks ago and which have been set out from time to time by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Civil Service Department. I have also made that clear to the Civil Service unions in my constituency where the Ministry of Defence is the largest single employer.
But that is not at issue. At issue is whether the proposal that has come from the Ministry of Defence will save any money and whether the Ministry's approach is most likely to carry employees in the years ahead as the Ministry and other Departments attempt to get better value for money. I remind the House of the facts. As part of its cost-cutting plans, the Ministry of Defence last year instituted a number of surveys covering a wide range of work from research and development to quality control. The first of those surveys to be finished was the report on contract cleaning and catering.
We have been assured on a number of occasions that, wherever possible, cuts in Civil Service manpower will be

achieved through natural wastage rather than redundancies. In this instance, clearly there was a good deal of pressure on the Ministry of Defence to cut numbers, partly because it employs about one-third of the total number of civil servants. Against that background the cleaners may seem to be an easy target. After all, in the Government's statistics, as in the divine plan, one Mrs. Mopp counts the same as one permanent secretary. In this instance the axe was not spared, and it fell not on a single deputy secretary, under-secretary, assistant secretary, senior principal or principal, but on just under three and a half score cleaning ladies. It is not surprising that one or two of my constituents have suggested that the whole episode sounds as though it comes from the television programme—which I have not managed to get home in time to see—called "Yes, Minister".
The contention was, and the contention remains, that the change to contract cleaning will save 5 per cent. of the cost of cleaning. That cost was given in a parliamentary answer before Whitsun, by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force, as totalling £299,700. Against that, the cost of redundancies amounts to £27,000. Even if we accept the figure for the total cost of cleaning, and even if we accept the figure for the alleged saving, it is still clear that it will take at least a couple of years to recoup the cost of the redundancies. The position is not as simple as that. First, let us consider the figure for the cost of cleaning the establishment. I do not accuse the Department of sleight of hand, but as I understand it, the figures given in the parliamentary answer actually covered all the Ministry of Defence establishments in Bath, including those that have already changed to contract cleaning.
It has been suggested that if we consider the figure for those establishments where the change will be made, it amounts to less than half the amount given in the answer. That suggestion is confirmed if we gross up and annualise the weekly wage costs, national insurance costs and bonus payment costs which have been given to the staff side of the local Whitley council. On those figures it would not take two years to recoup the costs of redundancy but at least four years. More important, the Ministry of


Defence has refused to give any figures to prove that the saving of 5 per cent. will be made. We have to take that on trust. I find that slightly strange. When we consider the White Paper on defence, paragraph 732, we see the cost for a nuclear-powered submarine, a type 42 guided missile destroyer, a Tornado GRI aircraft, a Puma helicopter, a Milan anti-tank missile, and so on. Yet, a veil of secrecy is drawn over the costs of contract cleaning. I commend the Department's openness in the one case, but in the other its reticence slightly surprises me.
Even if we accept that the tenders that have been put forward by the contract cleaning companies should remain secret—and I do not find the arguments for that overwhelming—there are some other facts that the Civil Service Union and the employees generally are entitled to know. For example, how many cleaners will be employed by the contract companies, and what hours will they work? Was a comparison made with the notional establishment, or was it made with the actual number of cleaners employed? The two figures are not the same. Is it true that the comparison was made on August 1979 pay rates? What would the comparison be if it was made on present pay rates? What rates of pay will the contract cleaners receive? Does the comparison take into account some allowance for the administrative forces that will be needed to monitor the contract?
As I understand it, there is no dispute that the present cleaning staff do an efficient job. I am told that their hourly work rate of 1,898 square feet is extremely good by any standards. Nor is anyone suggesting that they are well paid or highly paid. Actually, I think that I am right in saying that their rates of pay are rather less than those of their counterparts in local government. If that is the case, how can the job be done for less? Where will the savings come from? Will we see them come from a reduction in overheads? Will the contract cleaning companies be able to achieve a higher hourly work rate? Will the pay which they give out be lower? Will less be cleaned, or will it be cleaned to a lower standard? That is what worries a large number of people—that the savings, if they are made, will not be achieved

through greater efficiency but through a I lower standard of work.
I do not want to criticise the contract cleaning companies. They may well beable to achieve the savings about which J we have heard. If so, good for them. What I am saying is that we are entitled to receive the facts on which that contention is based. After all, the Governmcnt have been commendably open about such things as the Chevaline project. One is entitled to ask that they be a little more open about something which is perhaps of less importance.

Mr. Gavin Strang: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the diligent and assiduous way in which he has pursued this matter on behalf of his constituents, not only because of his commitment to them but because the Government are particularly vulnerable J on this issue. He is reluctant to criticieise the contract cleaning firms. Does he accept that there is evidence in the past of a clear inadequacy on the part of many of those companies, although perhaps not all? Does not the failure and refusal of the Government to provide the basic data—as the hon. Gentleman has clearly brought out—on which they are basing their decision, totally undermine the credibility of the assurance which Ministers have given in the House time and time again to the effect that they will make these changes only if they can justify them on cost-effective grounds?

Mr. Patten: The latter point is one which concerns me. As for the former point, I understand that the standards of cleaning by outside companies have been a source of concern in a number of the departmental Whitley councils. I am sure that my hon. Friend will confirm that.
It is an open secret, if it is a secret at all, that at the Foxhill establishment in Bath a good deal of work is going on in regard to Polaris, and that classified work which is almost as important, is also undertaken at that establishment. For that reason, the existing cleaning staff has had a security clearance before being employed. That will not happen with the contract cleaners. Indeed, one cannot see how it possibly could. Is the Ministry now saying that security clearance is no longer necessary because the nature of the classified work has changed? Is it


saying that the rules for security clearance have changed? Is it saying that other security checks will be applied? If it is saying that there will now be less security clearance, why did we spend so much on it in the past? Have we been wasting money? Are we still wasting money by operating security checks on some groups but not on the new contract cleaning staffs?
My last point is the one about which I feel most strongly. I think that everyone accepts that this group has done a first-class job. Do the Government intend to help them secure jobs? In making them redundant, we are not shedding the Government function. We are not saying that the taxpayer will no longer have to pay for this. What we are saying is that the taxpayer will go on paying for this service, but that he will get better value for his money. We know that for two years at least, and arguably for four, he will be the loser. The figures on which we can reach the conclusion that at some stage in future he will get a better bargain are being withheld. I think that is a pretty rum way of proceeding. I do not think that it is a reasonable reward for the effort and loyalty of the cleaning staff which has now been made redundant. It also provides a bad precedent for future attempts to cut costs in the Civil Service, which if they are to be successful should be carried through, as far as possible, with the full-hearted consent—I pick up a phrase which might have been used in the previous debate—of those who are concerned. The Department has much larger plans in the pipeline for cutting costs and increasing efficiency. I hope they will not be jeopardised by the ham-fisted way in which the Department carries them out.
I conclude by reading a letter from one of my constituents, who was a civil servant last March. He said :
Personally, I have a lot of sympathy for the overall aims of the present Government, even where the policy is one of optimising the resources in the Civil Service. However, I cannot and will not ever agree with any action of any Government which executes policies based on the ill-informed and biased views of public opinion, regardless of the effect and regardless of the fact that by so doing only a cosmetic result is achieved.
I sympathise with that point of view, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will be able to allay the anxieties

of that constituent and other constituents as well as my own.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. Keith Speed): First, even at this late hour, I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Patten) on raising this human problem. He is properly concerned about the jobs of his constituents, and I appreciate that concern.
He mentioned the problems, with which we dealt last year, of the possible move of many of his constituents out of Bath to other parts of the country. I am glad that that problem has been solved. I hope that if I explain the procedures and what lies behind the problem, that will go some way towards allaying his fears and answering some of his legitimate questions.
As my hon. Friend is aware, the position at Bath stems from a Government decision in June last year not to extend the moratorium, which had been imposed by the previous Administration, on the transfer of cleaning Government offices by directly employed labour to cleaning by contract services. In essence, that represented a reversion to the previous practice of deciding the most appropriate method of cleaning on the basis of cost comparison. I stress that this is nothing new. It went on long before the moratorium. It is entirely consistent with the Government's search for every reasonable economy in public expenditure.
My hon. Friend is also aware that this moratorium applied only to headquarters offices but that the Ministry of Defence took this opportunity to review the cleaning arrangements in all its establishments. During my speech to the House in the defence debate on 29 April I said that this exercise was in its first phase and that we v/ere concentrating on 80 or so establishments with the largest cleaning staffs. Those where a review is in progress were identified by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army in an answer to the hon. Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth) on 2 June. A copy of the consultative document that was prepared to cover the possibilities of both contract cleaning and catering has now been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
In each case relative costs are being assessed by means of inviting contract tenders as well as a detailed examination, largely at local level, of the non-financial implications. It is our intention to proceed to contract where financial savings are indicated, but only if there are no other over-riding considerations to prevent this.
The exercise is still not complete. However, at those establishments where a full evaluation has been made, the indications are that contract services will be able to offer a comparable service at lower cost than a directly employed work force. So far the potential savings indicated are very encouraging, with the average savings for a number of disparate buildings and cleaning costs running at about 20 per cent. of the directly-employed labour costs.
I turn to the specific issues raised by my hon. Friend. Ministry of Defence headquarters at Bath are housed in 10 locations. Of these, five are already cleaned by contract services and the other five are cleaned at present by a directly employed work force. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force, in answer to the hon. Member for Thornaby, told the House on 23 May that the cost of cleaning all 10 Ministry of Defence establishments at Bath, together with an element for administration costs, was just over £299,700. The current cost of cleaning those establishments where we shall replace the directly employed labour force is £175,400.
The Ministry's final selection of contractors indicated a 5 per cent. saving against the cost of direct labour, even after the inclusion of 15 per cent. VAT in the tender prices. My hon. Friend will realise, of course, that VAT will accrue to the Exchequer. It was decided, therefore, to extend contract cleaning to the whole of the Ministry of Defence's Bath complex, with the result that 67 staff will be made redundant.
The savings identified are based on a comparison of the costs of the number of staff needed to achieve a specified standard of service—the complement—with contract tenders to achieve the same standard and cover the same area. Present restraints, such as the recruiting ban now in force, mean that the current work

force at Bath is below the complement. In any case contract cleaning would still be cheaper than the current directly employed labour. The comparison was made in August last year at the then rates of pay on both sides, and the updated costs still show the same order of savings in changing to contract services. Furthermore, it also includes an allowance for the administrative resources needed to monitor the contracts.
Unfortunately, I am unable to give details of the number of cleaners who will be employed by contractors or the hours that they will work, as this would allow a fairly accurate estimate to be made of the contract tender prices. The normal rules governing commercial confidentiality must apply here.
Although I took my hon. Friend's point about the White Paper, the cost of Type 42 destroyers, Milans and so on, that is not germane, because here we are talking about a commercial tender made in confidence to the Ministry, and in the White Paper we are talking in broad-brush terms about the cost of items of equipment rounded to the nearest £1 million or £100,000. The two are not directly comparable.
The matter of commercial confidentiality was one of the questions referred by the Civil Service Union to the Central Arbitration Committee, an independent body, which endorsed the Ministry's stand. Subsequently the union approached the Divisional Court for a judicial review of the committee's findings, but its application was turned down.
I appreciate my hon. Friend's point and the point about trying to be as open as possible, and I should like to go a long way with it. But commercial confidentiality, which arises not only in this context but in others, is very important. The need for it has been upheld by an independent committee and upheld again by a court on appeal in recent weeks.
Contractors will use all their own material and equipment. The savings identified are attributable to a number of factors. A major saving lies in the fact that contractors' employees tend individually to work fewer hours a week. Therefore, the contractors are often not liable for national insurance contributions—quite legally. Their staff will be paid at least the current local authority rate.


In practice, the wage movements of Ministry of Defence staff and those of the contractors we engage follow each other closely.
In addition, shorter periods of working, generally rather higher work rates and the use of more up-to-date equipment, which has capital expenditure the MOD can less well afford, also result in savings to the benefit of the contractor. I assure my hon. Friend that they will not be achieved by a lowering of standards. All 28 of the central London MOD headquarter buildings are cleaned currently by contract cleaners, and standards in most of those that I have been in are pretty high, as I am sure my hon. Friend would agree. In order to achieve this end, the contract tenders selected were not necessarily the cheapest of those submitted.
We shall take suitable precautions to ensure that we have confidence in the security of contract staff. I note what my hon. Friend said about that important feature. Other measures, such as controlling hours of access, can also be taken to maintain proper security standards, and special arrangements are made for particularly sensitive areas, as we do, indeed, where contract cleaners are being currently used. My hon. Friend will not expect me to go into details of these publicly tonight, but I assure him that that is already the situation.
I am sorry that it has been necessary to involve these redundancies, but the Government are determined to press on

with their policy of achieving public sector economies. Everything possible has been done to soften the financial effect of the redundancies. All but two of the staff affected at Bath are part-time workers. Except for two cleaners recruited this year on a purely casual basis, none will be paid for less than six months from the date of issue of the redundancy notices and those entitled to more than this by virtue of length of service will receive it. Five of the staff are over 60 and will be retired on pension, but additional compensation payments will be made to those staff who have been employed for 12 months or more and have not yet reached retirement age. It is generally the case that contractors offer re-engagement to former staff made redundant. We are encouraging this and we have agreed to provide facilities for interview on site.
The Ministry's staff side has been given opportunity for comment and discussion at every stage, but I must stress that the saving to be secured by transfer to contract services has never been other than clear cut.
I hope that my hon. Friend will accept, therefore, that, painful though these decisions are, our resources must be deployed to be as cost-effective as possible. Over the years we have had plenty of experience of contract cleaning. We are convinced that in this and many other instances it has an important part to play in making savings of taxpayers' money.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past Two o'clock.